Japanese  Journal  of  Political  Science
http://journals.cambridge.org/JJP
Additional  services  for  Japanese  Journal  of  Political  Science:
Email  alerts:  Click  here
Subscriptions:  Click  here
Commercial  reprints:  Click  here
Terms  of  use  :  Click  here

Crisis  Management,  LDP,  and  DPJ  StyleELLIS  KRAUSSJapanese  Journal  of  Political  Science  /  Volume  14  /  Special  Issue  02  /  June  2013,  pp  177  -­  199DOI:  10.1017/S1468109913000029,  Published  online:  10  May  2013

Link  to  this  article:  http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1468109913000029
How  to  cite  this  article:
ELLIS  KRAUSS  (2013).  Crisis  Management,  LDP,  and  DPJ  Style.  Japanese  Journal  of  Political  Science,  14,  pp  177-­199  doi:10.1017/S1468109913000029
Request  Permissions  :  Click  here

Downloaded  from  http://journals.cambridge.org/JJP,  IP  address:  58.95.13.37  on  14  May  2013

Japanese Journal of Political Science 14 (2) 177–199
doi:10.1017/S1468109913000029!
C Cambridge University Press 2013

Crisis Management, LDP, and DPJ Style
E L L I S K R AU S S

Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, Universityof California San Diegoekrauss@ucsd.edu

Abstract
This article asks the questions: Did the DPJ engage in crisis response andmanagement differently than the LDP did? If so, why? If not, why not? In order totry to answer these questions systematically I use an inductive comparative methodof choosing three equivalent ‘cases’ each under the LDP and the DPJ in which they
responded to a similar type of crisis. The crises selected were Okinawa bases issues in1995 (LDP) and 2009 (DPJ), Senkaku Islands under the LDP (2008) and DPJ (2010),
and the Hanshin quake in 1995 (LDP) and Fukushima in 2011 (DPJ). This gave me anice mix of intense, short-term cases to compare; one domestic (disaster-related), andtwo foreign (Okinawa bases with US; Senkaku/Daiyou conflict with China); coalition
governments under LDP and DPJ (2009) of different kinds vs. single-party (other
DPJ). A very brief description of each crisis will be followed by some generalizations
comparing the two parties’ responses. I find that both parties had similar problems
with information management, but that there were characteristic and predictable tradeoffs of their different party decisionmaking structures and relations with the national
bureaucracy. Finally, I mention some of the inherent structural problems of Japanesepolitics and policymaking that inhibit effective response regardless of the party inpower.

The introduction by Alexandra Sakaki and Kerstin Lukner categorizes the four phasesof a crisis. This article will focus on the third stage only, the phase of ‘assessing thesituation, prioritizing, considering trade-offs, managing lines of communication andcommand, and coordinating the response to minimize damage’. I will also touch on theconsequences of the response phase, including ‘recovery and learning’. Although thisapproach has its limitations – omitting some of the crucial prior conditions and theircauses that led to the crisis and the response – it has the advantage in the short space
allotted of focusing our attention on the crucial ways in which governments deal withmajor, intense challenges at the time they appear.
177178 ellis krauss
As they also indicate, the management of crises, even in just the response phase,is directly related to some of the most basic theoretical issues and debates in the studyof Japanese politics and governance. For decades, political scientists have argued overstate–society relations and the model of governance in Japan, including which major
actor(s) have had the most influence on policy. Concepts of ‘iron triangles’ applied
to Japan with the LDP, bureaucracy, and big business (or other interest groups) haveperiodically been suggested (e.g. Yanaga, 1968; Sakakibara, 2004). In the 1980s, the ideathat the bureaucracy trumped politicians in managing society became the dominantconception (e.g., Johnson, 1982) only to be overturned by ‘rational choice’ models ofpolitician dominance and electoral determinism (Ramseyer and Rosenbluth, 1993; cf.
Krauss and Pekkanen, 2010).
Even within the bureaucracy dominant model there were variations with some(Johnson, 1982) seeing government officials as the key actors within their own
jurisdictions but with others (e.g., van Wolferen, 1990) focusing more on the segmented(“tatewari gyōsei’) nature of bureaucratic rivalry and inability of government to gain
consensus or coordination.
What few of these conceptual approaches to Japanese politics and governance haveever done, however, is to distinguish between routine policymaking and decisionmaking
under crisis conditions. How, and how well, does the Japanese political and governing
process function and manage problems, not in ‘normal’ times, but when (however
much they should have been anticipated) challenges are sudden, decisions must be
made quickly, pressure is intense, and the stakes are very high? Do any of these models
apply in crisis conditions? Do particular models apply with particular parties? Or
are there other insights we can gain about governance in Japan from studying crisis
decisionmaking across parties?
Further, because of LDP near-total control of government for 53 of the 54 years
between 1955 and 2009, there previously was never the opportunity to compare how
different political parties dealt with and managed crises during their tenure in officeunder these circumstances. Now, with the DPJ’s historic 2009 electoral victory, we havethat opportunity for the first time. Have different political party governments managed
better or worse, similarly or differently, than the other? Has there been continuity
or change in crisis management across different administrations and over time? These
questions offer the opportunity to investigate not only into how well or how poorly crisis
is managed by different parties with different policy platforms and personnel, but justas importantly whether there has been learning in crisis management across parties,
time, and types of crises, or whether there are persistent and pernicious structural
weaknesses in the way the Japanese government manages crises, regardless of the party
in power.
A methodological problem immediately arises, however, in such a comparison.
Crises are so different in type and nature how does one compare different parties’
responses? Ideally, the best method would be to find and compare crises of similartypes (or even the same type) that occurred under both the LDP and DPJ years incrisis management, ldp, and dpj style 179
power. This is difficult because of how little time the DPJ has governed, and made evenmore so by the fact that prior to the 1994 electoral reform (and to some extent the 2001
administrative reform) politics and policymaking were quite different compared toafterwards. But it is not impossible. In considering this problem, I was able to identify
three similar major issues with crises of different types that occurred under both party
governments subsequent to 1994. These are displayed in the chart below:

LDP
Okinawa bases 1995
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands 2008
Hanshin quake 1995

DPJ
Okinawa bases 2009
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands 2010
Fukushima crises 2011

All were sudden and intense crises. The rape of a 12-year old schoolgirl by US
military personnel instigated the Okinawa bases crisis of 1995 when it stimulated hugeprotests against the military bases in Okinawa for their reduction or removal; the 2009
crisis over the bases was instigated when DPJ party leader Hatoyama made statements
during the election campaign and after he was elected that he wanted to change theagreement the LDP worked out after years of negotiation with the Americans to manage
the first crisis. The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are disputed between Japan and both Taiwan
and the PRC. The crisis of 2008 involved a confrontation between Taiwan fishing boats
and a Japanese Coast Guard patrol vessel and the crisis of 2010 involved a similar
confrontation between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol boat. Finally, theHanshin quake of 1995 was the worst earthquake disaster in modern times to that pointwith thousands of casualties testing the response capabilities of the then LDP–Socialist
government coalition; the Fukushima 2011 quake was even worse as it also involveda major quake in Northeast Japan, followed by a devastating tsunami tidal wave andnear meltdown of a major nuclear power plant and resulted in tens of thousands ofdeaths. Thus, we have three sets of comparisons all since 1995 allowing us to compare
LDP and DPJ governments’ capabilities in handling them. These comparisons also
afford us the advantage of comparing these responses over similar types of issues andcrises: domestic disaster situations (Hanshin and Fukushima); foreign policy clashes
with Japan’s important neighbors and trading partners (Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands 2008
and 2010); and military US alliance crises over the same base issue involving domestic
protests (Okinawa bases 1995 and 2009). They also include coalition governments underboth parties (LDP in 1995 with the Social Democratic Party or SDPJ and the Sakigake
Party, and 2008 with the Clean Government Party; DPJ in 2009 with the SDPJ) versus
single-party governments under the DPJ (2010 and 2011).
These sets of crises, therefore, provide a way to more systematically compare
the LDP’s and DPJ’s crisis management capabilities and weaknesses in responding tovery similar conditions and situations over a recent 16-year period. There are some
limitations to this otherwise advantageous research design, however. Because some of180 ellis krauss
the crises are so recent, there are few deep scholarly investigations of them and I will
have to rely on journalistic and often articles written around the time of, or shortly
after, the crises. Second, in dealing with the successes and especially the failures of
responses to all these crises, we have no way of knowing for certain whether all theassertions upon which we must base our analysis are completely valid. Nonetheless,these do provide at least a view of how contemporaries at the time of the crises
evaluated the government’s responses. Finally, my evaluations of these crises strictly
focus on the issues of management of crises, not the moral, ethical, or political issues
surrounding these cases, nor with whose general policies related to these issues isbetter or correct. I make no judgments regarding the latter and only evaluate crisis
management skills, techniques, and resource handling. Nor in any way are these cases
intended to be a definitive or comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in them.
Rather, they are simply ‘mini-cases’ focusing exclusively on the response of the various
party governments to the crises.
With these caveats in mind, I first present brief summaries of each of the paired
comparisons and how well or ill the government of the time seemed to have handled
them. Then, I will try to come up with some tentative generalizations from thesecomparisons about the similarities and differences of each party’s management of crises,
before analyzing how the nature of the LDP and DPJ as parties and governments may
have affected these responses. Lastly, I will suggest at some of the consistent structuraldefects that may have hindered and are hindering both party governments’ crisis
management capabilities and what these suggest more generally about the applicabilityof the various models of governance in Japan during times of crisis.
Okinawa bases crises
The LDP 1995
Okinawa Prefecture, captured in a bloody battle near the end of World War II by
US forces, operated as a military colony of the US for 27 years after the war and finally
returned to Japan in 1972, is home to most of US ground combat forces (most of themMarines on Okinawa) still stationed in Japan. Over half of all US military personnel
in Japan are on Okinawa, three-quarters of the total land occupied by US forces lies
in Okinawa, taking up about 20% of the total land of this small and densely inhabitedJapanese prefecture. There have long been complaints by Okinawan residents of thehuman, environmental, and economic costs of this huge US military presence, but thebases have been maintained by both the US and Japanese governments on the groundsof their importance to US, Northeast Asia, and global security stability goals (Global
Security.org military, n.d.b; background is found in Hashimoto et al., 2005).
In September 1995, a US sailor and two Marines kidnapped and gang-raped a 12year Japanese schoolgirl on her way home from school. Although protests against thebases by Okinawan citizens (including landowners whose land had been confiscatedto build the US bases years before) had been endemic for years, they had always beencrisis management, ldp, and dpj style 181
smaller scale and manageable by the authorities. But the 1995 rape crystallized theanti-base movement that then organized huge protests involving as many as 80,000
persons on Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, and created an unprecedented waveof resistance against national Japanese government policy of the large US base presence
on Okinawa (Smith, 1998: 8).
The wave of protests were large and intense, and came at a time when there werevoices on both sides of the Pacific asking why such a scale of bases, or even the US–Japan
alliance itself, was necessary at all after the end of the Cold War (Funabashi, 1999). The
severity of the opposition to the bases in this context challenged both governments
to do something quickly to manage the discontent, but also to maintain the majority
of Okinawan bases to accomplish what they perceived to be the national security andalliance interests of both countries.
First the two governments discussed the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ (SOFA) thatgoverned US military personnel in Japan and which prevented US military personnel
from being turned over to a Japanese prosecutor until they were indicted, hampering
the gathering of evidence that could lead to an indictment. The Japanese are dissatisfied
with this provision, but the US maintains the different criminal justice systems and thehuman rights of its soldiers require such a provision. On this issue, the US agreed it
would give sympathetic treatment to Japanese requests to turn over a suspect prior toindictment in major violent crimes such as murder and rape. This action did not quell
discontent over SOFA. Then, a ‘Special Action Committee on Okinawa’, or SACO, wasset up in 1996, in further response to the discontent, to consider lowering the burdenof the alliance and bases on Okinawan residents. SACO issued two reports, an interim
one and a final one at the end of 1996 (Ina, 2005: 41–2). The final report provided
for the movement of Futenma helicopter base in southern Okinawa in the future. The
preferred site would be a sea-based facility off the East coast of Okinawa. Although theexact site was not specified in the report, it was widely assumed that it would be off thecoast of Nago City where the current US base at Camp Schwab was located (Brooks,
2010: 20–1 and 10–20 on the context and politics leading up to the final report).
This, however, did not satisfy the Okinawans, nor did it their Governor, Ota
Masahide, who wanted US bases on the island reduced, not just shifted around. Prime
Minister Hashimoto, on the other hand, while wanting to quell the dissatisfactionof the Okinawans, also wanted to reaffirm the alliance and not worsen US–Japan
relations at a time when the central government perceived a rising China, China–
Taiwan relations, and a dangerous North Korea as potential threats to Japan. Central
government negotiations with Okinawa were not going well, but Hashimoto continued
to try to satisfy both sides by pushing Okinawa to accept the move of Futenma whilepromising compensation to the Okinawans. All of this was complicated by related
issues, such as a renewal that was due of landowner leases for US bases, as well asnorthern Okinawan contractors who wanted any construction to be done only bythemselves and which exerted pressure on the Okinawan government to only come toan agreement if this were included (Brooks, 2010: 12–13, 23–6).

182 ellis krauss
Things became more complicated when Governor Ota refused to sign a new landlease agreement on the bases, and residents of Nago obtained enough signatures tohold a referendum on the heliport move to their city. Ota’s refusal to sign a new landlease for the bases was overcome when Prime Minister Hashimoto sued the Governor
to force him to sign the leases, and both regional high courts and the Japan Supreme
Court ruled in the central government’s favor and the Diet passed a law omitting theGovernor from the process of approval of leases in the future (Johnson, 1999a: 112–13).
In December 1997, a majority of voters in the city of Nago, rejected in a referendum
any construction of an offshore helicopter base near the city. Although the referendum
result was in no way binding, it represented a public relations setback for the potential
move. The Mayor, however, expressed his intention to accept the proposed move, andthen resigned, and his elected successor did consent. Governor Ota, who would not
accept the plan, was defeated in 1999 by an LDP-backed candidate who said he would,
aided greatly by the LDP and central government (Ogawa, 2005: 52; Brooks, 2010:
29–34).
All was not pressure, legal suits, and support for rival candidates, however.
Hashimoto, in 1997 on a visit to Okinawa on the twenty-fifth anniversary of thereversion of the islands to Japanese control, announced a ‘Twenty-first Century Planfor the Okinawan Economy’ with promises of measures to create a free trade zone
there, expedited visa procedures for foreigners to visit, tax incentives for businesses andimprovement of transportation and communications infrastructure, while partiallysingling out the northern region of the prefecture where the moved base would belocated (Inoue et al., 1997).
Further complex and difficult negotiations would drag on until 2006, when an
agreement was finally reached that encompassed the return of some US facilities
including Futenma, relocation of its functions to Henoko, and the removal of 8,000
Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam (Brooks, 2010: 34–85). This plan
has still not been implemented, but stretching the management of the problem out
over a long time and leaving resolution to even further into the future had defused the1995 crisis. In 2009, a different crisis over Futenma would erupt for the Japanese andUS governments to manage, with very different stimulus and handling.

The DPJ 2009
The DPJ had supported moving the base off the island, but in its 2009 election
manifesto, prior to taking power after its victory in the House of Representatives
election, it had promised only to ‘Move in the direction of re-examining the realignmentof the US military forces in Japan and the role of US military bases in Japan’ (DPJ
manifesto, 2009: 28). ‘Moving in the direction of re-examining’ is about as vague
a promise as one could get, and without any specific mention of Futenma. During
the election campaign, however, DPJ leader and future Prime Minister Hatoyama
specifically mentioned reopening negotiations with the US over the base agreement

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 183
and moving Futenma completely off Okinawa (Norimatsu, n.d.). Okinawan resistanceto the move of the base to the northern part of the island had never dissipated completely
but had become more subdued over the years. Hatoyama’s statements now reinvigorated
both the anti-base movement and its hope that a DPJ administration would indeed
fulfill its goal of reducing US presence on the island rather than just shuffling it
around.
Additionally, after taking office the new DPJ administration embarked on a seriesof policies that both frightened and irritated the new Obama administration. It ended
Japan’s refueling of US and other nations’ ships in the Indian Ocean as part of the war in
Afghanistan, and pushed for an ‘East Asian Community’ to strengthen economic andpolitical relations between Japan and its neighbors. Although these were long-standing
DPJ positions and should not have been a surprise, combined with the new moves
on Futenma they shocked Washington. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, went toTokyo where he had a meeting with new Foreign Minister, Katsuya Okada, that wasapparently not confrontational, although Gates emphasized the existing agreement on
Okinawa was the only real option, but the Japanese media interpreted it as Gates
scolding his counterpart (Brooks, 2011: 29). It should be noted that the Ministryof Foreign Affairs (MOFA) was overridden on its opposition to alienating the US(Norimatsu, n.d).
Hatoyama was under extreme pressure from all sides to live up to his campaign
promise. His coalition partner, the SDPJ, the former Socialist Party, was totally on theside of the anti-base movement and urging him on.1 The anti-base movement was
revitalized by the prospect of moving the base off the island. Environmentalists wereappalled that the new base near Nago would be built over the coast that was the habitatof an endangered sea mammal.
The US and Japan entered into negotiations on the matter. Near the end of
May 2010, the issue was finally settled by an agreement between the two countries
that gave some face-saving gestures to Hatoyama but substantially returned to theoriginal LDP agreement to move Futenma to northern Okinawa and not off theisland (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010). Okinawans were furious. The DPJ’s coalition
partner dropped out of the coalition. And this fiasco combined with scandals involving
DPJ Secretary-General, Ichirō Ozawa, as well as one concerning Hatoyama himself
finally led to Hatoyama’s resignation in June 2010. Adding insult to injury, subsequent
Wikileaks revelations made it clear that Hatoyama had communicated to the US earlyin the dispute that, if the US objected, the bases could stay in Okinawa, and thenin a subsequent interview after his resignation revealed that the need for continuing‘deterrence’, given to the public as the reason for the final agreement, was duplicitous
1

There are various theories about why Hatoyama decided to pursue the Futenma issue so early in his
administration (see, e.g., Harris, 2010). One rarely deeply investigated, however, is whether this wasa price the DSPJ exacted for the coalition, a coalition (also with small the People’s New Party) thatallowed the DPJ to gain a larger majority in the upper House as well.

184 ellis krauss
too (Norimatsu, n.d.). Whatever Hatoyama’s and the DPJ’s sincere intent to support
the Okinawan’s objections to US base hazards, the incident from start to finish seems
a total and unnecessary fiasco.
Comparing cases
Whatever one thinks of the issue of reducing the burdens of US bases on Okinawa
and whether the bases need to be there, an issue on which there is great disagreement
among scholars, or the ethics or legality of the Japanese government’s techniques, it isdifficult not to give Hashimoto some credit for his skillful handling of the 1995 crisis.
Using a combination of carrots (promises of economic aid, constant negotiations,and visits by himself and emissaries) and sticks (pressure, law suits, aid in unseating
opponents in elections), the crisis was gradually defused by the promise of at least
gaining residents near Futenma some relief, and through years of constant negotiation
over the form this would take stretching and gradually diminishing the intensityof the opposition and the memory of the horrible act that precipitated the crisis.
Okinawans by and large continued their opposition to maintaining so many baseson the island at all, but the immediate crisis atmosphere was managed. The negative
consequence is that it was handled but not really resolved to the satisfaction of the
Okinawans or the Japanese public, and that subsequent LDP governments were notable to implement the agreement, leaving its successor DPJ governments with the
problem.
Even if one sympathizes with the intent and goal of the DPJ’s support for the
Okinawan movement, one must conclude that Hatoyama himself blundered badly andhimself created the 2009 crisis by his statements and by holding out hope once again to
Okinawans that the base could be completely moved off the island without any viable
evidence that this could be accomplished. However sincere in his desire to reduce theburdens of Okinawans, there seems either to have been little calculation of whether
he really had any leverage with the US on the matter at all or Hatoyama knew he did
not have any but duplicitously engaged in the charade anyway. Unless Hatoyama wasprepared to kick the US out of Futenma, highly unlikely given its effect on the overall
alliance at a time of increased perceived threat from regional neighbors, his viableoptions for responding to a US ‘no’ were non-existent, with the resulting status quoof not moving the base at all, leaving the residents near Futenma worse off than they
were without the LDP agreement. That his actions would be perceived by the US as agross abrogation of a serious agreement with an ally, negotiated with difficulty for 11
years, and might rile the relationship right at the beginning of his term and of President
Obama’s, also did not seem matter to him. With the released documents of his promisein advance to the US that he would relent on the base move if the US refused the
proposal leaves the impression he was either naı̈ve or deceptive in his statements to
the Okinawans. Even given that the US also over-reacted and may have handled things
badly does not detract from the conclusion that the 2009 crisis was unnecessarily andnaı̈vely created by Hatoyama and the DPJ itself and woefully mismanaged.

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 185
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands confrontations
These islands have been a bone of contention between Japan and both the People’s
Republic of China and Taiwan for several years. Known to the Chinese as early as
the fifteenth century, they are little more than uninhabited rocks in the Pacific thatlie 120 nautical miles northeast of Taiwan, 200 nautical miles from China, and 200
nautical miles from Okinawa. The Japanese government officially claimed control overthe islands in January 1895 after concluding that they had never been part of China.
Because at that time, however, the two countries were locked in the Sino-Japanese War,the Chinese have always associated Japan’s takeover of the islands with their humiliation
at the hands of Imperial Japan, even though the islands were not part of the treaty with
China (Treaty of Shimonoseki) that ended that war (Global Security.org, Military, n.db; for more details on the history and claims, see Taira, n.d.).
After the end of World War II, the islands came under the control of the US without
any protest from China or Taiwan. And the Japanese argument (not accepted by the
Chinese) is that they were not part of the territory Japan ceded in the San Francisco
Peace Treaty. They were, however, returned to Japan as part of the revision of Okinawa
and the other Ryūkyū islands in 1971 and Japan has administrative control to this day.
However, once oil resources were discovered nearby in 1969, both China and Taiwan
have started claiming the islands. They claim that the islands had been under theadministration of Taiwan until they were ceded to Japan after the Sino-Japanese War
and that they were an integral part of Taiwan after the end of World War II (Global
Security.org, Military, n.d.b). ‘Perhaps the next generation will be wiser than us andfind a way of actually resolving this problem’, said Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in
1978 (The Economist, 2010). So far the opposite has been true.
The disputes over these islands are thus very complicated – by disagreements overlegalities involving interpretations of historical facts, by China’s grievances over its
imperialist humiliations, and by potential energy resource advantages. They also canbe influenced by other irritants and conflicts in China–Japan relations and by domestic
politics and nationalist pressures in both countries. For example, some consider the
Chinese government’s recent pressure concerning the islands to be part of its military’s‘access denial’ strategy, thus possibly also making the islands a geo-strategic problem
between China, Japan, and the US (Waseda University Japan–US Research Institute,
2008–2010: 76). The issue of the islands is one thing both Taiwan and China agree upon,
however.

The LDP/CGP 2008
In 2000 and until its defeat in 2009, the LDP had as its coalition partner the Clean
Government Party (CGP), a moderate centrist party. Under this coalition government
in the 2000s, the Japanese government was fairly consistent in its policies: eject any
Chinese vessels who trespassed in the zone around the islands claimed by Japan, but
seek to avoid any escalation of conflict with either China or Taiwan. But then on 10

186 ellis krauss
June 2008, a sport-fishing vessel from Taiwan sunk after colliding with a Japanese patrol
boat in the disputed waters.
Japan released the passengers but detained the captain, claiming the boat hadcrashed into the Japanese vessel. They released the captain after three more days (seeSingh, 2010). The Taiwan government, however, claimed that the Japanese were lying
and it and the crew of the vessel asserted that the Japanese patrol ship had rammed
their vessel (Taipei Times, 2008a). Taiwan protesters and journalists in ten boats circled
the islands on 15 June and the Japanese Coast Guard monitored them and warned
them off but no further incidents occurred. However, one of the crew members aboard
the Taiwanese vessel had videoed the collision, which showed clearly that the Japanese
Coast Guard boat, was at fault. Japan paid about $310,000 in compensation to theowners of the Taiwan vessel (Asia Times, 2010).
Within two weeks of the incident, Japan and the captain of the Coast Guard vesselthat rammed the Taiwan boat were providing Taiwan and the captain of the fishingvessel with a written apology (Taipei Times, 2008b). Japan was highly embarrassed by
its initial claims that the Taiwanese vessels was at fault, visual evidence having beenreleased proving this to be false.
Some elements of this 2008 crisis were to be repeated in a far more serious one,this time with the People’s Republic in 2010.
The DPJ
As we saw above, the DPJ took over the reins of government in 2009, thefirst electoral defeat for the LDP in 54 years. We have also seen how the DPJ
attempted to reorient Japanese foreign policy after taking power, in part with theattempt to renegotiate the Futenma base issue albeit with disastrous results. The
party’s intentions, however, were smarter and more well-intentioned than theirimplementation, encompassing maintaining but re-gearing the US–Japan alliance anda different foreign policy strategy more suitable for a multi-polar international systemthat was witnessing the rise of China. Indeed, this included strengthening its Asian ties
especially with China (Hughes, 2012).
During its first year in office, the DPJ exhibited the friendliest policy toward
China in many years. Its Secretary-General, Ozawa Ichirō, led a 600-strong delegation,
including over a hundred of the young new DPJ Diet representatives on a trip to Chinathat included a meeting with President Hu Jintao that called for deepening trust andcooperation between the two countries (China View, 2009). Prime Minister Hatoyama
in a speech in Singapore just a few months after taking power called for the buildingof an ‘East Asian Community’ as a step toward more EU-like regional integration(Government of Japan, 2009). China and Japan now seemed to be moving closer thanat any time since Japan recognized the People’s Republic in 1972.
On 7 September 2010, just a week after the first anniversary of the DPJ winning
power, a confrontation occurred near the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands that would change
everything. Once again it involved a Chinese boat, this time a fishing boat. A large

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 187
number of Chinese fishing boats apparently moved into the area near the disputed
islands following schools of fish. When a Japanese Coast Guard patrol boat moved in
toward one of the boats it deemed too close to the island, the fishing boat collided with
the Japanese vessel, although how was not initially revealed. The Japanese seized thevessel and crew, which they soon returned to China, but arrested the Captain and held
him to be tried in Japanese courts. As could be seen by comparison to the quick releaseof the Captain in the case of the 2008 incident involving Taiwan, this was a somewhat
unusual handling of the matter, and may have been a deviation from a 2004 secretunderstanding between Japan and China (there was no such agreement with Taiwan).
There is some evidence that Minister for Land, Transportation, and Infrastructure (theMinistry with jurisdiction over the Coast Guard), Maehara Seiji, a young, past, andpossibly future, leader of the DPJ, may have intervened to direct the unusual arrest,
and that his subsequent promotion during the crisis to Foreign Minister may haveintensified the crisis by angering the Chinese. Apparently, Prime Minister Hatoyama
was otherwise preoccupied with the intense race for his successor (Tiberghien, 2010:
3–7).
Despite early signs that the crisis might be contained, the Chinese belief that theJapanese were violating their prior secret agreement, and the prosecutor’s decision
to hold the Captain of the Chinese fishing vessel for an additional ten days, further
inflamed the Chinese government.2 It seemed to engage in aggressive actions to show its
displeasure at developments, including arresting four Japanese employees on businessin China and a threatening speech by the Prime Minister against Japan, and there wasa perception by Japan and the US that its ending of shipments of ‘rare earth’, a resource
used in the manufacture of many high-tech products, was part of this pattern as well.
This finally led the prosecutor to release the Captain, probably under pressure fromthe Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry. But this was not the end. China
surprisingly demanded an apology also from Japan, anti-Japanese protests took placein parts of China, and verbal attacks continued (some against Maehara personally for
his role), while counter-Chinese demonstrations and statements then took place inJapan (Tiberghien, 2010: 7–9).
Then in the midst of it all, the most unexpected turn of all occurred. A Coast
Guard officer who was unhappy with his government’s handling of the crisis unilaterally
released a video on YouTube that clearly showed the Chinese vessel had intentionallyrammed the Japanese patrol boat despite warnings from the Coast Guard boat to stayaway (but did not show what had led up to this confrontation).3 This was a hugeembarrassment to the DPJ government that had been trying its best to downplay andresolve the crisis. It is unclear whether the Captain of the Chinese vessel was just angry
2This is common procedure under Japanese law: the police may hold suspects for up to 30 days without
an indictment.
3 An Al Jazeera news report with commentary that has a copy of the video can be seen at
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmMUtNBY-2Q

188 ellis krauss
and aggressive, drunk, or merely trying to keep his catch and boat from being seized.
The video does not show what led up to the part where he rammed the Japanese Coast
Guard boat. But the fact that the DPJ government had concealed this aspect of theconfrontation from its own people in order to calm relations with China did not goover well with the public and undermined DPJ popularity (Tiberghien, 2010: 8–10).
The costs for all actors in this unintentional crisis between Asia’s two economic
and military superpowers were huge. It torpedoed the DPJ’s moves toward China and,along with the Futenma fiasco, public support and its ‘grand strategy’ for a re-oriented(literally and figuratively) Japanese foreign policy. China thus lost as an ally its mostcooperative Japanese government in ages. Later in a meeting with now Foreign Minister
Maehara, Secretary of State Clinton overtly stated for the first time that the US–Japan
Security Treaty covered the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.4 The DPJ had been forced backinto a foreign policy posture and strategy much more similar to the previous LDP’s
reliance on the US than it had wanted previously (Hughes, 2012). Many governmentsin the Pacific also were shocked at the surprisingly aggressive stance and over-reactionof the Chinese government and began to wonder if China was now flexing its muscles
and becoming uncomfortably nationalistic rather than the responsible up-and-coming
power it seemed to have been trying to be previously. By the ‘rare earth’ controversy,
some also began to doubt if China was in the long term a reliable supplier of key goods,
and some businesses and governments considered diversifying their sources of supply.
The only ‘winner’ of the confrontation and crisis was the US (Mulgan, 2010), a victorythat could turn out pyrrhic if it involves the US directly into any future confrontations
between Japan and China over the islands.
Comparing cases
Neither party’s government handled these crises with Taiwan and the PRC well.
In each case, they wisely tried both to minimize the conflicts with these important
Asian trading partners but simultaneously pacify any criticism from nationalists or
the public that they were not defending Japanese claims to the island. Neither party
succeeded completely in either respect but interestingly failed in completely different
fashions. To minimize the conflict, the LDP government released the captain of the
Taiwanese sport fishing vessel relatively quickly, but publicly and falsely claimed theirvessel was at fault; the DPJ government on the other hand, held the captain of the PRC
fishing boat in custody for a long time (one thing that infuriated the Chinese side) but
tried to minimize conflict with the other side by not revealing that the Chinese boat
had intentionally rammed the Japanese Coast Guard patrol boat. And, in both cases,
4

Although this statement seemed to be a change of policy in that the US appeared to be revising its priorpolicy of avoiding getting involved in the island dispute, the US−Japan Mutual Security Treaty (ArticleV) does state, ‘Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under
the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would
act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes’ (italics
added).

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 189
the release of visual evidence of who was actually the cause of the collisions highly
embarrassed the Japanese government and undermined its credibility – in the formercase with the Taiwanese and in the latter case with its own public.5
Disasters and their management
During the past 20 years, Japan has experienced two horrendous natural disasters,
the 1995 Hanshin earthquake that devastated parts of the important port city of Kobe,
and the 2011 Great Eastern Japan (GEJ) earthquake and its subsequent huge tsunamithat also resulted in an intense and potentially catastrophic near-meltdown at a nuclear
facility in the area (Fukushima). The former crisis occurred during the administrationof a coalition cabinet of the SDPJ prime minister and a few of his colleagues from thisparty and the small Sakigake Party, but one dominated by the LDP. The GEJ disasters
occurred under a DPJ administration and cabinet.
The LDP/SDPJ/Sakigake (1995)
On the 17 January 1995, the Hanshin earthquake struck with a magnitude of 7.2.
It centered on the city of Kobe and its approximately one and a half million people –Japan’s fifth most populous metropolis. The worst earthquake to devastate Japan innearly 70 years, it resulted in over 5,000 deaths, 30,000 injured, and left 300,000
homeless, with over 100,000 buildings damaged (Fukushima, 1995).
Problems with the government’s response to the disaster showed up almost
immediately. The government waited five and a half hours after the quake before
the National Land Agency responded (Asahi Shimbun, 1995a). Although a National
Emergency Center (NEC) was established the same day as the quake, only 2,300 SelfDefense Force (SDF) personnel were dispatched because the NEC lacked sufficient
information as to the extent of the damage and problem (Asahi Shimbun, 1995b). The
government did begin to respond somewhat better after that. Within just a few days,
Prime Minister Murayama visited the devastated area, and a local response headquarters
was established in Kobe (Asahi Shimbun, 1995c). Part of the problem, however, was that
despite Japan’s vaunted procedures and systems in place to forecast and deal with suchdisasters, neither national nor local governments had anticipated such a large quake
in this area, but rather it had always been forecast for the Tokai region near Shizuoka(Fukushima, 1995; Asahi Shimbun, 1995f).
Further problems, however, continued to hamper the effort. Although volunteer
relief poured in, they were totally uncoordinated by the government (Asahi Shimbun,
1995g), and government efforts were consistently plagued by lack of coordinationand communication between and among agencies; also some individual agencies and5

An Asahi Shimbun public opinion poll (Q10) published on 16 November 2010 in the morning edition of
the newspaper, revealed that 79% of respondents thought that not releasing the video of the incident by
the government initially was ‘an inappropriate decision’. See http://mansfieldfdn.org/program/researcheducation-and-communication/asian-opinion-poll-database/listofpolls/2010-polls/asahi-shimbunnovember-2010-emergency-public-opinion-poll-10–32/ (accessed 11 November 2012 12:28p.m.).

190 ellis krauss
functions were apparently performed better (communications) than others (traffic
control) (Fukushima, 1995; Orr, 1995; Asahi Shimbun, 1995d). One perfect example ofthe lack of coordination between ministries was the refusal at first of the government
to accept the offers of aid from foreign countries even though the MOFA favoredit, because the Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) apparently wanted tohandle it only domestically (Fukushima, 1995; Asahi Shimbun, 1995e).
The media and public attributed blame for these failings to personal, political,
and structural factors. Personally, Prime Minister Murayama was criticized for hislack of experience in government, but also politically because some thought his
and the government’s slow response to using the SDF extensively was becauseof his and his party’s long ideological opposition to the SDF’s constitutional
legitimacy (Asahi Shimbun, 1995h, i, j). The structural criticisms were legion. The
inability of the Prime Minister’s Office, or any other comprehensive institution, toeffectively coordinate disaster response, allowing to operate the typical and well-known‘vertical administration’ (tatewari gyōsei) of the bureaucracy’s rivalry, territorial andjurisdictional jealousies, and lack of horizontal communication, came in for the mostcriticism (e.g., Fukushima, 1995; Asahi Shimbun, 1995g, k, 1998).
Less than two weeks after the quake, opinion polls showed that a majority ofthe public did not support the government’s response to the disaster, citing lack of
preparation for rescue, decisionmaking problems, and lack of effective leadership by theprime minister (Asahi Shimbun, 1995 l) . Administrative reforms later passed by the Dietand implemented (2001) were partly aimed at rectifying the problems that were clearlyshown in the government’s response to the Hanshin quake, including strengthening theprime minister and the cabinet’s control and coordination over the bureaucracy andconsolidating several agencies. Among these were the Construction and Transportation
Ministries and the National Land Agency, the agencies most involved in responding todisasters such as the 1995 earthquake, which were combined into a single Ministry of
Infrastructure.

The DPJ 2011
On 11 March 2011 at 2:46p.m. a magnitude 9 earthquake struck off the Northeast(Tōhoku) region of Japan. The magnitude of the quake was unprecedented in Japan inmodern times and created an enormous tsunami wave estimated to be 15 meters (about
45 feet) high that struck along the same coastline easily surmounting any sea wallsthat had been constructed against such an eventuality. Approximately 15,000–20,000
persons are estimated to have been killed or missing, the overwhelming majority by thetsunami and few by the earthquake (Kaufmann and Penciakova, 2011). The tsunami also
severely overwhelmed and damaged the Fukushima nuclear plant in the area that had
four reactors right along the coast, causing the loss of electricity and backup generatorsand thus the shutdown of crucial cooling systems. Three meltdowns occurred within
the first three or so days causing hydrogen explosions that released dangerous radiation

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 191
into the surrounding area (Kingston, 2012), and, it was later discovered, into the foodchain.
Given the unprecedented scale of the quake and tsunami, the immediate responseof the DPJ government to both was probably relatively satisfactory, undoubtedlyreflecting some of the lessons learned and improvements made to the system after
the Hanshin earthquake. Earthquake preparation had been strengthened both in termsof training and in terms of infrastructure, and the early warning system installed
after the Kobe disaster seemed to work – communications, especially the internet,
continued to function. The Bank of Japan fed billions into the economy quickly tostabilize the markets. Unlike in the Hanshin quake, a large (100,000) contingent of
SDF was quickly mobilized and responded, and foreign aid was accepted without hugedelay. Probably in part because of the preparedness and training, the population also
responded remarkably well (Kaufmann and Penciakova, 2011).
The nuclear disaster response by contrast, however, was another story entirely.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the company that operated the nuclear
plant and one with a history of deception and cover-up of its mistakes, bears muchof the responsibility for the subsequent mishandling of the crisis as it consistently
failed to inform government officials, especially the prime minister and cabinet, ofwhat was happening at the plant, downplayed dangers, did not adequately inform or
misinformed the government and public about developments, and then tried to shift
all the blame onto the prime minister rather than admit its epic mismanagement of thecrisis.6
Nevertheless, the government as well for its part did not perform well, aboveand beyond the lack of information and misinformation given it by TEPCO. The
government did not announce the release of radiation due to the hydrogen explosion
until five hours after it occurred (AERA, 2011a). Its instructions to citizens concerning
how wide an evacuation zone was in effect constantly changed in the first few days,
and its information to the public about the radiation dangers was often wrong or
inaccurate (AERA, 2011b). Indeed, it appears that some of the evacuation centersestablished were actually in higher radiation areas than those that citizens had been
instructed to evacuate from! Later investigation showed that the prime minister had
been told by the Chair of the Nuclear Safety Commission that the System for Predictionof Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) that determines the locationof radiation dispersal was not available, when it actually was, and when he was finallyaccurately informed it could be used it was already 11 days after the hydrogen explosionthat released radiation into the atmosphere. The Minister for Economics, Trade andIndustry, in whose jurisdiction the nuclear industry resides, admitted later he had neverheard of the system before the Fukushima meltdowns (Kingston, 2012).

6(Kingston, 2012) provides a damning report on TEPCO’s intentional and unintentional failings before,
during, and after the disaster.

192 ellis krauss
The major opposition party rather than rallying to show unity in the time of suchan unprecedented calamity for the nation proved to be only an obstacle. The LDP’s
leader refused a request by Prime Minister Kan to join the cabinet and take on a role in
the reconstruction of the devastated areas, and then failure to get other parties to agree
to join the reconstruction headquarters delayed the submission and passage of the Basic
Reconstruction Law. It therefore did not pass the Diet until over three months after
the quake (Jiji Press, 2011). There has also been much criticism that the government’s
efforts at reconstruction after the quake have been too slow.
There is much blame to go around concerning the crisis and its handling: the
LDP helped create the problem by its many years in power when it did not regulate thenuclear industry properly, and TEPCO clearly was responsible for many of the problems
during the crisis. Nevertheless, the ad hoc, uncoordinated, non-transparent handling of
the crisis, the government’s inability to control and manage TEPCO, and the failure tocommunicate timely and accurate information to the public when it needed it have all
resulted in the DPJ government becoming the target to much of the public’s criticism.
Six months after the disasters, polls showed that 67% do not support the government
response to the earthquake and that 78% do not support the government response to
the nuclear plant incident (Asahi Shimbun, 2011).
Comparing cases
To some extent, the sheer magnitude and triple nature of the GEJ disasters makes
comparison to any other crisis difficult, even to the devastation caused by the Hanshin
quake. It is also clear that the DPJ government, thanks to lessons learned from Hanshin
16 years earlier, responded better to the GEJ earthquake and tsunami than the LDP
government had done. Neither probably was handled as poorly as the Katrina disaster in
New Orleans in the US. Yet the incompetence, miscommunication, lack of transparency
and coordination, and failures in command, control, and communicate with TEPCO,
bureaucrats, local officials, opposition parties, and most of all with the public shown by
the DPJ government in the 2011 nuclear disaster have to be evaluated highly negatively
as a response to crisis. Most disconcerting of all perhaps is that some of these failings,
most especially in coordination and communication among bureaucratic agencies andwith the public and the failure of the governments to have the necessary knowledge
to have strategies and plans in place to deal with the problems, were similar to theshortcomings seen during the Hanshin disaster.
Some tentative conclusions and comparisons
Six cases, three from each party government, of course do not provide sufficientmaterial for a definitive comparison of how each party handled crises in the 1990s to
the 2010s. No sample would; but by choosing very similar types of cases, we can begin
to see the outlines of crisis management for each party government sufficient to makesome preliminary comparisons and generalizations.

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 193
It is clear from even our brief summaries above that none of the six crises washandled particularly well, and most poorly, by whichever party was in control ofgovernment. Arguably, the 1995 Okinawa base crisis might qualify in a very limitedsense as having been handled best, not because the crisis was quickly and effectively
solved by the LDP government of the time but because at least it managed to defuse therage of the public and use the resources that the LDP had by virtue of its long tenure
in power to dampen its intensity. This gained it the margin it needed to enter into
long-term negotiations with the US over the movement of the bases. That it took overa decade more to even gain an acceptable agreement, however, indicates, that the LDP
central government did not have enough influence or power over local governments
to force an agreement any sooner, and was as lacking in skill and resources as thesubsequent DPJ government to bring about a solution that was at least minimallysatisfactory to Okinawans.
These crises indicate almost predictable trade-offs about the kind of disadvantages
or advantages the LDP and DPJ governments have in facing a crisis. Because of the LDP’s
nearly 54 year hold on power, the close connections and communication it developedwith the bureaucracy, the ‘policy tribe’ representatives with expertise in policy areas andconnections to interest groups and officials, its leverage with local governments, andits ability to deploy financial resources derived from a long period of economic growth
without huge budget deficits, the LDP governments had an advantage they could use,for example in the 1995 Okinawa bases crisis and even in the 2008 Senkaku/Diaoyu
crisis with Taiwan.
However, these very advantages also created major weaknesses that helped produce
crises or limited the ability of government to manage them. Dependence on andclose connections to the bureaucracy and interest groups meant a lack of arms-length
regulation that helped produce the GEJ nuclear problem. It also meant dependence onsuch officials for information and judgment, judgment for example that might prove
woefully wrong as in the case of the Ministry of Defense’s false conclusions as to who was
at fault in the 2008 Senkaku/Diaoyu crisis or its lack of preparedness for the Hanshin
quake. Integration with the bureaucracy also means the cabinet and government is assubject to, and may not be able to transcend or coordinate, the rivalries and lack ofcommunication and cooperation across policy areas such as in the bureaucracy. For
most of the LDP’s time in power, it also meant a relatively weak prime minister – exactly
the role that should have command and control during a crisis.
DPJ governments have exactly the reverse advantages and disadvantages. Their
newness to power means they can approach policy with fresh eyes and new innovative
policies (such as Hatoyama tried to do with the Okinawa bases issue and the
security relationship with the US). The DPJ’s total distrust of the bureaucracy andits centralization of power in the prime minister and cabinet, however, also meant thatit had no real expertise to depend upon to help it handle the crises (2009 Okinawa
bases, 2010 Senkaku/Diaoyu, GEJ) it faced, no experience in governance, and a naı̈ve,
inexperienced, and a ‘loose cannon’ prime minister who first helped to create the194 ellis krauss
crisis and then mis-managed it almost single handedly (2009 Okinawa bases). When
failures occur as well, the DPJ government has no ‘political cover’ on which to blame
the mishaps on the bureaucracy and will become the lightning rod for public orbureaucratic discontent (as Kan did in 2011 GEJ nuclear disaster). To a large extent,
Japan in the 1990s–2010s is paying the price for its one-party dominant rule for so many
years, no matter who comes to power, just in different ways.
Three consistencies stand out, nevertheless, across party governments. The first isthat having the SDPJ (Socialist) as a coalition partner helps create more problems thanit solves in a crisis. In both the crises in which it was in government (Hanshin and 2009
Okinawa bases), it either was ineffective because of its lack of experience in government
or an actual impediment to managing the crisis because of its ideological predispositions(slow response to bringing the SDF in during Hanshin; limiting Hatoyama’s options
and mobilizing pressure on him during the 2009 Okinawa bases crisis).
The second is that both party governments and leaders have had tremendous
problems managing and communicating with their national bureaucracies, publicagencies, and the public in crisis, no matter who is in power, and whether thoseagencies are civilian (Hanshin, GEJ, 1995 and 2009 Okinawa bases) or military (2008and 2010 Senkaku/Diaoyu), national or local. The ‘vertical administration’ of Japan’s
bureaucracy impedes communication across responsible agencies, as some models ofJapanese policymaking have suggested. But even within them, the national government
has difficulties in times of crisis in commanding and controlling and in communication,
both to and from them. In too many of the crises, the government communicatedfalsehoods or insufficient information to its own public, generating mistrust andundermining support (Senkaku/Diaoyu 2008 and 2010; Okinawa bases 2009; Hanshin
and GEJ disasters).
Finally, the obverse and source of these problems was the apparent lack ofinstitutionalized, authoritative, coordinating organizations and mechanisms to handle
relationships across and between governments and between them and the public.
Despite the strengthening of the prime minister’s and cabinet’s roles and functions withelectoral and administrative reform in the 1990s, they still appear relatively weak in acrisis and unable to effectively communicate and authoritatively command, whoever isin power. Instead, other than Hatoyama’s partial use of the courts after the 1995 Okinawa
rape incident, to a surprising extent the government still seems to rely on informal andad hoc measures, relationships, and organizations to coordinate, communicate, andpersuade other actors involved in the crisis. This of course is then subject to theindividual personalities, self-interests, and capabilities of the individuals involved.
One would expect in any democracy in times of major domestic or foreign policy
crises that power would temporarily become more centralized, so that authoritative
orders and commands within the government could be issued and obeyed, and thatthe public and media would rally around the government, foregoing partisan politics
and opposition for the time being. This also means that those who are clearly in chargeduring the crisis can be held accountable for its management after it is over. Instead,crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 195
Japan seems to have none of these attributes during a crisis. Rather, as in Sakaki’s andLukner’s citing of Richard J. Samuels in the introduction, a view buttressed by our cases,
each of the major actors involved in crises continue to pursue, protect, and defend theirown self-interests (Samuels, 2012), perhaps even more so. This generalization seems
particularly to apply to Japan in the crises considered here.
In not one of the crises we considered was there a single clear authority throughout
government that operated effectively and whom the media, public, and opposition
parties rallied around. The examples of this abound: the broken communicationand decisions within parts of the central government or between center and local
governments in both Hanshin and GEJ disasters; TEPCO’s misinformation andignoring of government’s wishes during the latter; the embarrassing lies of the Coast
Guard during the 2008 Senkaku/Diaoyu crisis or the insubordinate release of thevideotape during the 2010 crisis; the resistance of local governments in the 1995 basecrisis; or the mobilization of protests against moving Futenma to another part of Japanother than Okinawa. The central government seems to lack official authority to getthings done even in a crisis and instead must rely on (often mismanaged) informal
communication, persuasion, and coordination among rival and often uncooperative
bureaucratic, political, and public actors.
This may seem particularly surprising considering Japan’s image that grew up
around the world in the 1980s and early 1990s during Japan’s economic growth
bubble and industrial policy era of an effective, unified, centralized, and authoritative
democratic government with nationwide support that could get things done right.
Although the bureaucracy was important in all our cases, it was anything but incontrol, or effective. Involvement in does not control make, as in the bureaucratic
dominance theory. In for example the GEJ triple disaster case, certainly the cozy
relationship between business in the form of TEPCO and the nuclear power industry,
the bureaucracy and the political parties (LDP) and the ‘iron triangle’ it formed hadmuch to do with the creation of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. However, during thecrisis itself each of the actors in the triad were anything but cooperative and collusive –it was every actor for himself to defend and protect individual interests. And politicians,
particularly in the form of the prime minister, were anything but ‘in charge’ during anyof our cases, just the opposite, Thus none of the usual theoretical models of Japan we
mentioned in the beginning of this article seems to fit these crisis situations exactly.
It was John O. Haley, however, who saw beyond the supposedly effective outcomesof Japan’s golden age of the 1980s, to the reality of how such seemingly cohesive
effectiveness then was accomplished. He argues that such outcomes came about throughinformal guidance, persuasion, and relationships, and that the reason the government
had to rely on the latter was because it lacked formal, legal, authority to command.
The government’s (mis-)handling of these crises seems to support this insight. Without
recognized and effective formal authority, responses to crises depend on the vagariesof the personalities and informal networks involved at the time, and any previously
cooperative relationships seem to break down under the pressure of crisis management.

196 ellis krauss
If such informal relationships worked in routine policymaking of the 1980s, our cases
indicate that after the changes and reforms of the 1990s, such relationships tend to fallapart under stress, and the lack of formal, legal, authority to command has not worked
particularly well for Japan to manage crises.
About the author
Ellis Krauss is a Professor at the Graduate School of International Relations andPacific Studies, University of California San Diego. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford
University (1973). An expert on postwar Japanese politics and on US–Japan relations,
He has recently completed a coauthored book with Robert Pekkanen (University ofWashington) about the development of Japan’s long-time ruling party, The Rise and Fallof Japan’s LDP: Political Party Organizations as Institutions (Cornell University Press,
2010). Professor Krauss also has authored or co-edited seven other books on Japan,
including [co-edited with T. J. Pempel, UC-Berkeley], Beyond Bilateralism: US-Japan
Relations in the New Asia Pacific (Stanford University Press, 2004), and has publishednumerous articles in professional political science and Asian Studies journals. Email:ekrauss@ucsd.edu
References
AERA (2011a), ‘Expressions by People Evacuated from the First Fukushima Nuclear Plant: Nobody Knew the
Exposure’ (d d d d d d d d !d d d d " d d d d d ! d d " d d d d d d d d),
28 March, p. 13.
AERA (2011b), ‘The Fukushima Nuclear Plant Disaster and the Outage Plan Are Going to the
Worst Scenarios: Collapsed TEPCO’s Organization’ (d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d d d d . . . d d d d d d d d d), 28 March, p. 18.
Asahi Shimbun (1995a), ‘Too Heavy Coordinating Role for National Land Agency: Neither Information
Network nor Right of Command – Great Hanshin Earthquake’ (d d d d d d d d ’
d d d ’ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 26 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995b), ‘Administrative Function Confused Coalition between the State and the Local:
Overconfidence – the Validation of Great Hanshin Earthquake’ (d d d d d d d d d d d d d(d d : 3 d d d d d d d d)), 30 January, p. 4.
Asahi Shimbun (1995c), ‘The Government Established the Local Response Headquarters with 14 Members:
Great Hanshin Earthquake’ (d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 23
January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995d), ‘Strengthening the Prime Minister’s Office’s Function when the Emergency and
Focusing on Unified Response: The Government Will Re-Examine the Anti-Disaster Plan’ (d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 23 January,p. 1.
Asahi Shimbun (1995e), ‘The Different Stance between Ministries and Agencies Made the Acceptanceof Foreign Countries’ Support Late – Great Hanshin Earthquake’ (d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 27 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995f), ‘Too Heavy Coordinating Role for National Land Agency: Neither Information
Network nor Right of Command – Great Hanshin Earthquake’ (d d d d d d d d ’ d d d ’
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 26 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995g), ‘The Reformation Is Needed for Quick Response to the Disasters and Some
People Seek Reorganization – Great Hanshin Earthquake’ (d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d d d d d d d), 23 January, p. 2.

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 197
Asahi Shimbun (1995h), ‘Great Hanshin Earthquake Showed that Murayama’s Controlling over the
Bureaucracy Is Still Insufficient because of the Lack of Strong Personal Connection’ (d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 24 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995i), ‘Nagata-Cho’s Silence and Slow Reaction: Look at Political Situation –Great Hanshin Earthquake and Politics, No. 2’ (d d d d d d d d d d d d d ! d d d "(d d d d d d d d : d), 26 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995j), ‘Great Hanshin Earthquake Showed that Murayama’s Controlling over the
Bureaucracy Is Still Insufficient because of the Lack of a Strong Personal Connection’ (d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 24 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995k), ‘Too Heavy Coordinating Role for National Land Agency – Neither Information
Network, Nor Right of Command – Great Hanshin Earthquake’ (d d d d d d d d ’ d d d ’
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 26 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1995l), ‘Great Hanshin Earthquake – Asahi Shimbun’s phone survey’ (d d d d d d
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 29 January, p. 2.
Asahi Shimbun (1998), ‘Ongoing Strengthening Crisis Management – Three Years after Great Hanshin
Earthquake (d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d3d), 16 January, p. 39.
Asahi Shimbun (2011), ‘A National Opinion Poll: A Half Year after Great East Japan Earthquake’ (d d d
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), 10 September, p. 7.
Asia Times (2010), ‘China Signals V for Victory’, by Kosuke Takahashi, 10 October, http://www.atimes.com/
atimes/Japan/LJ05Dh01.html . Accessed 21 May 2012.
Brooks, William L. (2010), The Politics of the Futenma Base Issue in Okinawa: Relocation Negotiations in
1995–1997, 2005–2006, Washington, DC: The Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies, Johns
Hopkins University-SAIS, Asia-Pacific Policy Series, No. 9.
Brooks, William L. (2011), Futenma Log: Base Relocation Negotiations 2009–2010, Washington, DC: The Edwin
O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies, Johns Hopkins University-SAIS, Asia-Pacific Policy Series,
No. 12.
China View (2009), ‘Ruling Parties of China, Japan Agree on Seeking Stronger Overall’, http://news.
xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/10/content_12626887.htm. Accessed 11 June 2012.
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) Manifesto 2009, www.dpj.or.jp/english/manifesto/manifesto2009.pdf.
The Economist (2010), ‘China’s Spat with Japan: Deng’s Heirs Ignore His Advice – A Row Over Disputed
Islands Goes from Bad to Worse’, 23 September, www.economist.com/node/17101152 . Accessed 21 May
2012.
Fukushima, Glen (1995), ‘The Great Hanshin Earthquake’, JPRI Occasional Paper No. 2 (March),www.jpri.org/publications/occasionalpapers/op2.html.
Funabashi, Yoichi (1999), Alliance Adrift, Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.
Global Security.org military (n.d.a), ‘Okinawa, Japan’ website found at www.globalsecurity.org/military/
facility/okinawa.htm. Accessed January 27 2012.
Global Security.org military (n.d.b), ‘Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands’, www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/
war/senkaku.htm. Accessed May 21, 2012
Government of Japan, Speeches and Statements by Prime Minister (2009), ‘Japan’s New Commitment toAsia: Toward the Realization of an East Asian Community’, address by Dr. H.E. Yukio Hatoyama,
Prime Minister of Japan, 15 November, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/hatoyama/statement/
200911/15singapore_e.html. Accessed 11 July 2012.
Haley, John Owen (1991), Authority without Power: Law and the Japanese Paradox (Studies on Law and Social
Control), Oxford University Press.
Harris, Tobias (2010), ‘Observing Japan’, blog, 10 May, www.observingjapan.com/2010/05/why-didhatoyama-go-after-futenma-first.html.
Hashimoto, Akikazu, Mike Mochizuki, and Kurayoshi Takara (eds.) (2005), The Okinawa Question and the
US–Japan Alliance, Washington, DC: The Sigur Center for Asian Studies, Elliott School of International
Affairs, George Washington University.
Hughes, Christopher W. (2012), ‘The Democratic Party of Japan’s New (but Failing) Grand Security
Strategy: From “Reluctant Realism” to “Resentful Realism”?’, Journal of Japanese Studies, 38(1):109–40.
Ina, Hisayoshi (2005), ‘Implementing the SACO and Revising the SOFA’, in Hashimoto et al., pp. 41–50.

198 ellis krauss
Inoue, Masamichi, Mark Selden, and John Purves (1997), ‘Okinawa Citizens, US Bases, and the Dugong’,
http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/dugong.html. Accessed 14 February 2012. (Originallypublished in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 29(4) (October–December), 1997.)
Jiji Press (2011), ‘The Great East Japan Earthquake and the Government’s Response to It’ (d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d), Jiji.com, 26 April, www.jiji.com/jc/v?p=ve_soc_jishinhigashinihon20110426j-01-w530.
Johnson, Chalmers A. (1982), MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975,
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Johnson, Chalmers A. (1999a), ‘The 1999 Rape Incident and the Rekindling of Okinawan Protest Against
the American Bases’, on Chalmers Johnson (ed.), Okinawa: Cold War Island, Cardiff, CA: Japan Policy
Research Institute, pp. 109–29.
Johnson, Chalmers A. (1999b), ‘The Heliport, Nago, and the End of the Ota Era’, in Chalmers Johnson (ed.),Okinawa: Cold War Island, Cardiff, CA: Japan Policy Research Institute, pp. 215–32.
Kaufmann, Daniel and Veronika Penciakova (2011), ‘Japan’s Triple Disaster: Governance and the Earthquake,
Tsunami, and Nuclear Crises’, Brookings, 16 March, www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/03/16japan-disaster-kaufmann. Accessed 17 June 2012.
Kingston, Jeff (2012), ‘Mismanaging Risk and the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis’, Japan Focus, 10(12), 19 March,www.japanfocus.org/-Jeff-Kingston/3724. Accessed 28 March 2012.
Krauss, Ellis S. and Robert J. Pekkanen (2010), The Rise and Fall of Japan’s LDP: Political Party Organizations
as Historical Institutions, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2010), Joint Statement of the US–Japan Security Consultative Committee,
28 May, by Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, Minister for Foreign Affairs Okada,
Minister of Defense Kitazawa, www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/joint1005.html.
Mulgan, George Aurelia (2010), ‘US–Japan Alliance the Big Winner from the Senkaku Islands Dispute’, East
Asia Forum (26 October), www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/10/26/us-japan-alliance-the-big-winner-fromthe-senkaku islands-dispute/. Accessed 11 June 2012.
Norimatsu Satoko (n.d.), ‘Hatoyama’s Confession: The Myth of Deterrence and the Failure to Move a Marine
Base Outside Okinawa’, Japan Focus, www.japanfocus.org/-Satoko-NORIMATSU2/3495.
Ogawa, Kazuhisa (2005), ‘A Grand Bargain for a Sustainable US Military Presence in Okinawa’, in Hashimoto
et al., pp. 51–61.
Orr, Robert M. (1995), ‘The Relief Effort Seen by a Participant’, JPRI Occasional Paper No. 2, March,www.jpri.org/publications/occasionalpapers/op2.html.
Panda, Rajaram (2011), ‘IDSA Comment: DPJ’s Duplicity on Futenma Base Relocation in2009’, Institute for Defense Policy and Analysis, 9 May, http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/
DPJsDuplicityonFutenmaBaseRelocationin2009_rpanda_090511.
Ramseyer, Mark and Frances Rosenbluth (1993), Japan’s Political Marketplace, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sakakibara, Eisuke (2004), Structural Reform in Japan: Breaking the Iron Triangle, Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Singh, Bhubhindar (2010), ‘China–Japan Dispute: Tokyo’s Foreign Policy of Pragmatism’, RSIS Commentaries
No. 127/2010, 5 October, http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/commentaries.asp?selYear=2010.
Smith, Sheila (1998), ‘Representing the Citizens of Okinawa’, Social Science Japan, 14 (November), pp. 8–10.
Taira, Koji (n.d.), ‘The China–Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands’, Japan Forum, article No.
2119. A revised and expanded version of an article reprinted from The Ryukyuanist, spring 2004,
http://japanfocus.org/-koji-taira/2119. Accessed 21 May 2012.
Taipei Times (2008a), ‘Officials Drop Plan to Visit Diaoyutais’, by Shih Hsiu-Chuan and Flora Wang, 18 June,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/06/18/2003415043. Accessed 21 May 2012.
Taipei Times (2008b), ‘Japan Apologizes Over Boat Incident’, by Jenny Hsu, 21 September,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2008/06/21/2003415342. Accessed 21 May 2012.
ThaIndian News (2008), ‘Taiwanese Boats Enter Japanese Waters To Protest Ship Collision’, 15June, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/taiwanese-boats-enter-japanese- waters-toprotest-ship-collision_10060642.html. Accessed 21 May 2012.
Tiberghien, Yves (2010), ‘The Puzzling 2010 Diaoyu Crisis: Centrifugal Domestic Politics, Shifting Balanceof Power, and Weak Regional Institutionalization’, Harvard Asia Quarterly, http://asiaquarterly.com/

crisis management, ldp, and dpj style 199
2010/12/24/the-puzzling-2010-diaoyu-crisis-centrifugal- domestic-politics-shifting-balance-of-powerand-weak-regional-institutionalization/. Accessed 11 June 2011. Summary version available at
http://ffj.ehess.fr/index/article/271/yves-tiberghien.html.
Waseda University Japan–US Research Institute on Security Policy Research Group[d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ] (2008–2010), ‘ Building a Comprehensive
Japan–US Security System in a New World Order’ [ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d], Tokyo: Waseda University US–Japan Research Institute.
Van Wolferen, Karel (1990), The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and Politics in a Stateless Nation, New York:
Vintage Books.
Yanaga, Chitoshi (1968), Big Business in Japanese Politics, New Haven: Yale University Press.