The Yoshida Doctrine

Every foreign relation that a Nation-State enters is always self-serving. A country enters into an agreement with another for the purpose of achieving its national goals, and preserving its national security. When a country is in need of aid, whether in the economic or defense facet, the first option that that country would take is to enter into relations with other nations, and the first country on their list would be the United States. The United States has been the World Superpower since time immemorial, dominating the world in almost all aspects. Consequently, when countries are in need of aid, the US is their first option in mind to turn to. When Japan was grappled by the crippling effects of the Second World War, their intuition dictated for them to enter into foreign relations with the US – Thus, the Yoshida Doctrine was born. The doctrine was named after Yoshida Shigeru, a Japanese diplomat and politician who served as Prime Minister of Japan from 1946 to 1947 and from 1948 to 1954, during the critical transition period after World War II (http://www. newworldencyclopedia. rg/entry/Yoshida_Shigeru). This paper aims to give an overview on the foreign relations of Japan on a global level focusing on the present time period. Times are changing in unimaginable ways. There have been great changes which can be viewed as positive or negative depending on whom the observer is; in this case, the relations between Japan and the US. What was once an acceptable agreement in the past may now be of little or no importance when applied to the present. Often times we hear the quote: â€Å"the only thing constant in the world is change. With this in mind, everything that a country would enter must be done with utmost clarity, and must take into consideration the circumstances of every case which may be applicable to it. The circumstances which may have warranted the application of the Yoshida Doctrine in the past may not anymore be applicable at present; thus, there would be a need to abolish or amend certain provisions of the aforementioned agreement for the proper application thereto. The Yoshida Doctrine was the product of an agreement between then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida with the United States. The agreement was made to help Japan recover economically from the effects of the World War II. To be able to achieve this, Japan heavily relied on the United States for its military protection. This was the tactic seen by then Prime Minister Yoshida to alleviate the effects of the war and to help it recover as a nation economically. It can be said that the Yoshida Doctrine that Japan entered with the US was bilateral and asymmetrical. The doctrine was bilateral mainly because it was an agreement only between the US and Japan. Also, the doctrine was asymmetrical for the reason that the agreement was leaning more on the US’ benefit. At first glance, the doctrine truly is beneficial for Japan; however, in the long run, this benefit would be at the expense of Japanese national dignity. At the time of the Cold War, the doctrine dictates that the US will leave economic matters to the Japanese government. On the other hand, defense issues will be handled by the US. This would mean that the US would act in behalf of the Japanese military in handling Japanese defense. The military is an instrument of a state that holds the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. The military is tasked to defend the nation-states’ people from internal and external threats, and to maintain peace and order. These are the traditional roles of the military. A state’s hold on its military is essential to its survival, and for the assurance of its sovereignty. If one is to be nuance about the situation concerning the Yoshida Doctrine that the US would handle matters on Japanese military on external defense, then this would mean that positions in the United Nations most especially the seats in the United Nations Security Council, the United States would as well hold. It is of utmost importance to point out that although I would like to prove that Japan could defend itself and stand on its own, it is still important for it to become a member of the United Nations Security Council. Being a member of the United Nations is crucial, since this international organization plays a huge role in fostering unity amongst the member countries. Japan is already a member of this prestigious organization and it should build on improving its relations with it. The United Nations was established in order to foster peace and unity among those countries who are parties to it. The United Nations does not seek to trample on the manner by which a country runs its government but aims for each of its country members to abide by its generally acceptable principles such as peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and the like. As such, the members of the United Nations are in agreement that it is important to respect the rights of the different sovereignty that are part of it. This is important because it would give a sense of peace of mind to governments of the various member Nation-States since it knows that it has the freedom to govern its people without any outside influence, while at the same time knowing that it has alliances from other countries which would be of help when the need arises. There is no direct evidence that the United States benefited from the Yoshida Doctrine. But, a closer look into the agreement would reveal that the United States was able to influence Japan to a formidable extent. The United States has been touted as the most powerful country at present; consequently, every country would aspire to establish a relation with it, in one way or another. The presence of the United States military force in Japan gave the former the chance to control the latter by the mere presence that it has in their country. The Yoshida Doctrine has already served its purpose, and its dictate on the Japanese government at the present is no longer applicable. The doctrine’s purpose of giving Japan economic aid in exchange for handling the Japanese military has long since been able to establish itself. On the economic aspect, Japan is considered as one of the top countries in terms of economic growth. A country as rich as Japan has sufficient amount of resources needed to sustain its military workforce. At present,, It would be a very crucial decision to stray away from the Yoshida Doctrine since this may result to having a strained relation with the United States. However, it is still possible to enter into peaceful negotiations with countries to maintain their diplomacy with each other. At the present, Japan can now stand on its own both financially and on the level of security. This country has mastered economic policies with proofs from its domestic growth in colossal amounts.. Every government must have sufficient amount of income in order to support its needs such as education, livelihood, military, infrastructure and other relevant projects. The economic growth being enjoyed by Japan signals stability for their government. A crucial decision to remain free from the influence and dependence of the United States is a very difficult decision for Japan. However, these are risks that a government must be willing to take. The security force of any government should be taken seriously. The military is akin to the commander in chief of any organization. The military should pledge its loyalty to only one government otherwise, various problems and conflicts may arise. If the United States would continue to extend its aid to Japan pursuant to the Yoshida Doctrine, then I believe that the presence of the former in the latter country is there for the wrong reasons. This is where the argument becomes significant that an amendment of the doctrine is in order. The initial understanding of Japan and the United States is that the latter would extend its military service to the former to help it recover economically. I believe that this concern is no longer of issue at this day and age. The agreement should be rendered moot and academic. If Japan would still want to have the United States military force to be present in their country then a new agreement is in order, so that it would correspond to the present need thereof. As history would tell us, it is safe to say that too much alliance with a particular country affects the independence of that country. Whether the party concerned likes it or not, there will be decisions that it has to make in consideration of the country with whom it has an agreement with. This could adversely affect the foreign policy of that particular country to the prejudice of its constituents. It would be best for Japan to keep its alliance with the United States to a minimum and focus instead on its relations with, not only the United Nations, but more so, with all the other countries as well. It is better to maintain a good and harmonious relationship with the United Nations which is composed of several countries than to focus on enhancing its relations with a single country. The relationship of Japan and the United States could be eventually criticized to the prejudice of both countries. If Japan would continue its close relations on this intimate level with the United States it could be regarded as a country which would do everything and agree on anything that the latter agrees on. It is very important for any country to have independence and liberty free from any form of outside influence. I believe it would be best for Japan to nurture is relationship with other countries than to focus on the United States. For instance, Japan can improve its relations with countries with whom its relationship is not as strong as with the United States. Japan has a good head start, it is already a member of the United Nations and of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors or more commonly known as G-20. The G-20 is composed of 19 countries and of the European Union whose aim is to address global economic issues. The group is composed of, United Kingdom, China, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, France, Germany, these countries among others. The point of the matter is that Japan should improve its relations with these countries instead of merely being complacent with its relationship with the United States. Japan should nurture its relations with France, China, Mexico and other countries comprising G-20 as this would be of great and beneficial advantage for their country. Japan has already proven its loyalty to the United States, thus, it is now time for it to move on to other countries. Japan may instead work on enhancing its relations with its neighboring countries in order to work on more policies for their benefit. Every country needs to maintain diplomatic relations with every possible government in order to better achieve its goal. Further, it can also be argued that the resources of Japan should be shared not only with the United States but with all other countries that are desperately in need of it and vice versa. The United States should not only favor those countries with whom it is able to receive something but it should also strive to allocate its resources even to those with whom it is unable to gain in return. It may sound ideal; however, it only means being civil. It only means living under agreements where profit is not the main reason for living. On a political aspect, the Yoshida Doctrine was made during the time of then Prime Minister Yoshida. The factors by which Then Prime Minister Yoshida was surrounded with may no longer be applicable at this present time of Prime Minister Taro Aso. The situation of Japan during the post World War II period is entirely different than today. Through several years, Japan has evolved politically. When Japan was still on the verge of recovery from the effects of World War II, it needed to have an ally to be able to rise up again. As such, then Prime Minister Yoshida, entered into an agreement which was to be known as the Yoshida Doctrine with the United States. In 2009, many years after World War II, Japan is regarded as the third largest economy. Japan has gained this status after years of hard work. Japan is considered as technologically advanced and has been accepting more and more investments, making it economically self sufficient. Statistics show that it has 0% population below poverty line. The relation of its economic growth with its political aspect is important. A government that has a flourishing economy is self-sufficient, thus, its government is capable of standing on its own. Thus, the Yoshida Doctrine would no longer be applicable at this time. Although it can be argued that it would be very difficult to just suddenly nullify the Yoshida Doctrine since there is a risk of misinterpretation on the part of the United States. Such act would consequently invite questions regarding Japanese intentions or its loyalty, still, a thorough study of this matter is proper for the best interests of Japan. Prime Minister Aso is faced with different challenges that his leadership and term has to face. The leaders of any government should view every agreement on a long term basis. Any crucial agreements being made should be examined in the light of all factors such as economic, military, or political aspects. A leader must always bear in mind that he is merely the representative of the country that he represent, he does not occupy the position to establish personal or beneficial interests for his own agenda. Instead, the thinking should always be two steps ahead. There should be a projection of circumstances with a thorough analysis of every possible conflict that may arise as a result of any agreement or treaty. Any agreement that a country seeks to enter must not be for the benefit of the reigning political party or person occupying the highest position of the land. The underlying reasons for entering into any agreement must transcend the political interests of a particular party. With this, it can be said that a revision of the Yoshida Doctrine is in order so that it would be made to adapt to the present situation facing Japan. The Yoshida Doctrine affected Japan’s foreign policy post World War II to a great extent. Japan surrendered its military force to the United States since it wanted to rehabilitate its economy which was destroyed by the war. As a result, the United States was tasked to take control of the military defense of Japan. Up to this day, Japan has maintained strong ties with the United States. Japan took the risk of allowing the United States to take control of their security while it was busy with gathering resources for its economic recovery. This set-up has its consequences that are being felt even to this day. When Japan agreed to enter into an agreement with the United States it did not look far into the future since it was merely concerned with the situation, post World War II. There was lack of foresight in analyzing the future. The criticism that could be raised today is that, as a result of the Yoshida Doctrine, Japan now finds it hard to gain â€Å"independence† from the United States and to gain a representing seat at the United Nations Security Council. If the Yoshida Doctrine be not amended, Japan will forever bear the stigma of being an ally of the United States. Japan has surrendered a very powerful weapon to the United States that is their military force. It can be said, that this would also result to giving up a big chunk of their sovereignty and independence as a country. Japan must re-examine its position and its resources. It must look at the bigger picture and determine whether or not it is still profitable for it to maintain close ties on this level with the United States. Japan must have given itself options and widened its horizons by thinking twice when it surrendered its military force in favor of another country, in this case, the United States. If the situation would be taken from a bigger perspective, avoiding any myopic view of the matter, a problem could be detected. One aspect that we can see is that the Yoshida Doctrine does not support the resort to war as a means to resolve conflicts. On the other hand, the United States is known to be active in supporting its military workforce by engaging in war with other nations to eliminate terrorists. There seems to be a conflict of principles undertaken by these two countries who aim to work as one. When the need arises for Japan to follow United States orders on the military aspect, Japan would have no voice and would have to abide by the agreement that it has entered with the United States. Japan is therefore left with no voice, no autonomy and no independence to protect its own country through ways that it believes in. The amendment of the Yoshida Doctrine would not totally cut the ties of Japan from the United States. It merely seeks to place Japan on its proper place. The leaders of Japan should take this matter seriously if it does not want to be forever bound to the doctrine that should have long been amended. Too much of everything is bad. A middle ground should be established between the ties that bind Japan and the United States. There should be room left for the government officials of Japan to exercise its decision making when it comes to defending the security of their country. Japan may use the experiences that it has acquired from the United States during those times when the latter has extended its aid to the former. From here, Japan could form its own strategy, its own plan, a defense system that it can call its own, free from any influence by the United States. In this way, Japan would gain more respect from other countries and could set a good example for other nations, giving the idea that a strong nation can do anything on its own with a little help from others. If, after a thorough analysis of the situation, Japan believes that it is not ready to go on an all out independence from the United States, then it may enter into an agreement with the latter that would still give them enough freedom to decide on their own. The United States in this regard would merely be there to guide Japan, instead of totally taking away the military sovereignty and independence of the latter. I am of the opinion that the Yoshida Doctrine should be reshaped to be made more applicable at this present time. Japan has long been able to stand on its own and has since recovered from the crisis that it was faced with in the past which necessitated surrender of the military to the United States. Independence of any country, free from any external influence should be the guiding principles of any nation since it must learn how to stand on its own. It would not however hurt to seek help from another country but this does not mean that one should have total reliance thereto. Japan should begin to reexamine and delve deeper into its motive for its close alliance with the United States. The United States has its own concerns and issues to address independent of Japan. This means that the United States always has to look out for its country first and foremost without having to consider the stake that other allies have over it. Throughout the years from the 1970’ up to the present, many things have transpired. Japan has flourished economically, the United States became involved with defending its country by resorting to war, terrorism has become the major problem of the United States and so on. Japan should begin to take a different course from its overdependence with the United States, it should start taking the path that would give it more independence from the latter. To end my article, let me share with you a line that deserves to be pondered on: â€Å"Freedom is the emancipation from the arbitrary rule of other men. † This quote that was once uttered by Mortimer Adler fully encompasses the relationship that Japan has with the United States. If Japan puts its national sovereignty on its lists of priorities, then Japan must rethink its relationship with the United States, and think more than twice on their future transactions.