The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 14 (2003)

A Global Superpower or a Model of Democracy?:
Images of America in Post-Cold War Japan
Fumiko NISHIZAKII INTRODUCTION
On September 8, 2001, a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Peace Treaty between the Allies and Japan was held in San
Francisco, California. The atmosphere was, as expected, quite warm andcelebratory. Sponsored by the Japan Society for North California andorganized by a private initiative called the U.S.-Japan 21st Century
Project, the ceremony was attended by former Prime Minister Kiichi
Miyazawa, the past and present secretaries of state, George P. Shulz andColin Powell, and ambassadors from Japan and the United States.
Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka, quoting from Prime Minister Shigeru
Yoshida’s words that the treaty was “an instrument of reconciliation andtrust,” expressed amazement at how the two countries, after such a prolonged and devastating war, have established so strong a partnership.
The peace treaty, together with the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty signed on
the same day ﬁfty years ago, played a crucial role in bringing about
Japan’s postwar development and in consolidating “the most importantbilateral relationship bar none.”1
Five years prior to the ceremony in San Francisco, another projectcommemorating a historic event between the United States and Japan
Copyright © 2003 Fumiko Nishizaki. All rights reserved. This work may be used,with this notice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work
may be distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission from the author.

49

50

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

had been under way in Washington, D.C. The National Air and Space
Museum, part of the Smithsonian Institution, was at the time preparing
an exhibit centered around the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the ﬁrst
atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The planning of the exhibit was turning out
to be an extremely strenuous process, since the curators, museum directors, veterans, and the Congress were unable to agree upon the historical context in which the atomic bombings should be placed and whatmessages should be conveyed to the visitors. After acrimonious debatesthat lasted for over a year, the initial proposal, that described the bombings as both the acts of war that led to Japan’s surrender and the acts thatsignaled the opening of the nuclear arms race, was thrown away. The
exhibit that opened on June 28, 1995 was drastically cut down in scale
and presented a sanitized and innocuous display of the restored airplane.2
The contrast between the two commemorations is symbolic of the relationship between the United States and Japan. On the one hand, policymakers on both sides of the Paciﬁc have made consistent efforts tocultivate a strong partnership both politically and militarily. Althoughsometimes erratic, economic relations between the two countries havealso prospered. Furthermore, the editorials in the Japanese newspapers
around the 50th anniversary of the Peace Treaty suggested that there
were few misgivings regarding the existence of the alliance between the
United States and Japan. The categorical opposition to the U.S.-Japan
alliance, especially to the strengthening of military cooperation that has
erupted time and again over the past ﬁfty years seems to have been ﬁnally put to rest.3
On the other hand, people in the two countries have disagreed witheach other, as well as among themselves, over perceptions of peace, war,and history. Although the people of the United States and Japan haveovercome hostilities against each other on the whole, some incidents are
bitterly ingrained in their memories. The attack on Pearl Harbor and theatomic bombings are the two outstanding examples. Thus, the Japanese
media and the general public were disturbed by the way the Enola Gay
exhibit became the focus of a political tug-of-war in the United States
and by the ﬁnal decision at the Smithsonian. When veterans and somemembers of Congress denounced the original script for letting “Japaneseperspectives” overwhelm the story of a United States victory and sacriﬁce, they seemed to be insisting that Japanese and American narratives
depicting the bombing should never be presented side by side. BeneathA GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

51

the repeated vows of partnership between the two governments lay a
deep schism that cannot be easily dismissed.4
It is important to note that in Japan, incidents like that at the Smithsonian arouse two groups of people whose ideas about peace and whose
attitudes toward the United States are quite far apart. One group consistsof peace advocates, who oppose war in general and consider nuclear
weapons to be inhumane. They uphold the preambles and article 9 of theJapanese Constitution that renounce war, and are critical of the UnitedStates’ development into a military superpower. The other group consists of nationalists, who believe that history in Japan must be told froma Japanese perspective. They resent that Japanese narratives of history
were taken away at the end of the war by the vindictive Allies. Although
they consider the Asian countries that decry Japanese war crimes as theirprimary enemies, they also denounce the United States for forcing a winners’ justice onto Japan.
The purpose of this paper is to explore Japanese perceptions of theUnited States during the past decade and consider how such perceptions have interacted with post-cold war deﬁnitions of peace and interpretations of history. By looking at three representative arguments inpresent-day Japan, I will analyze how developments after the cold war
have affected the way in which people in Japan have come to approach
the problem of peace and to redeﬁne a possible agenda for a new U. S.Japan relationship.5
II

THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD AND THE UNITED STATES—
THE BACKGROUND TO A NEW RELATIONSHIPThe end of the cold war and the dissolution of the Soviet Union wereperceived as a triumphant moment in the United States. The chain of
events culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall appeared to be a vindication of the policy of containment enunciated more than forty years earlier. Whatever mistakes the United States had made during the cold war
years now seemed aberrations that could be subsumed under the grandnarrative of historic victory. According to Tony Smith’s America’s Mission, the whole process should be interpreted in the context of American
efforts to promote democracy worldwide, and although one cannot exaggerate the American contribution, its role in bringing about the collapseof communism and “the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe” was indispensable.6

52

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

Despite the euphoric atmosphere, there was an uncertainty in the
United States as to how it should direct its foreign policy in the post-cold
war era. It had lost not only its chief enemy but also the cold war frameof mind, from which it was used to viewing the world. While an overwhelming number of people in the foreign policy establishment believedthat the United States should not renounce its role as the leader of the“free world,” that old bogeyman, isolationism, seemed never too far
away. The question was to what extent the United States was willing toforego its familiar frame of mind and see the world from a new perspective. Amid such uncertainty, a barrage of books and articles appeared
seeking to analyze the implications of the changes brought about by theend of the cold war.7
One best-selling author who, at least partly, epitomized the intellectual atmosphere surrounding both policy-oriented scholars and the public in this period was Francis Fukuyama, who was working for the RAND
Corporation and the State Department. In 1989, Fukuyama published anarticle entitled “The End of History?” in the National Interest in which
he argued that a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy was emerging throughout the world and that liberal
democracy would constitute the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution. He pursued the same theme in The End of History and the Last
Man, published in 1992, in which he identiﬁed two reasons that he believed make liberal democracy the ultimate ideology in “History”. First,
it is supported by the “logic of modern natural science” which has had auniform effect on all societies and has dictated a universal evolution in
the direction of capitalism. Second, it satisﬁes “the desire for recognition” by creating a system of government characterized by universal andreciprocal recognition. Fukuyama made it clear that history as the occurrence of events had not come to an end and that he was not arguing thatthe millennium had come. Still the thrust of his argument clearly indicates that for him, the end of history could be equated with the inevitable
future triumph of liberal democracy.8
On the other hand, not everyone was as optimistic as Fukuyama. In
1993, another celebrated article, “The Clash of Civilizations?” bySamuel P. Huntington, appeared in Foreign Affairs. In this article, andin the book he subsequently published under the title of The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Huntington argued thatin the post-cold war world, what shaped the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conﬂict were not ideologies, politics or economy, but

A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

53“civilization identities.” In his view, in a world which was becoming
increasingly multipolar and multicivilizational, the inﬂuence of the Westwas in relative decline, whereas those of Islam and Asia were expanding. Warning that the West’s universalist pretensions might bring it into
conﬂict with other civilizations, especially with Islam and China, hecalled for Americans to reafﬁrm their Western identity and unite withother Westerners to preserve it against challenges from non-Western
societies. It was a battle cry for Western civilization.9
These two arguments, despite their apparent disagreement, provide aclue to understanding American attitudes toward the outside world in the
post-cold war era. On one hand, Americans were conﬁdent that they had
played a historic role in universalizing the idea of democracy and that
their moral, as well as material, superiority was incontestable. On theother hand, many were anxious about the seemingly-ever-increasing
number of people in the world who were bent on rejecting American values and challenging the United States at every opportunity. It was thisjuxtaposition of conﬁdence and anxiety that lurked behind American foreign policy after the cold war.
By the time Huntington’s article appeared in Foreign Affairs, theUnited States had ﬁnished ﬁghting the ﬁrst war of the post-cold war era
under the Bush administration. Immediately after Iraq invaded and subjugated Kuwait on August 1, 1990, President George Bush denounced
Iraq for its blatant violation of international law, enforced economic
sanctions, and stepped up military preparedness around the Persian Gulf.
The eight months of diplomacy preceding the invasion saw the emergence of some outstanding features that would inﬂuence the shape ofinternational relations during the next decade.10
The ﬁrst of these was the importance accorded to multilateral approaches in general, and the United Nations in particular. The United
Nations Security Council, which had been dormant for almost half a century due to U. S.-Soviet stalemates, suddenly leapt onto the front stageof international negotiations. From resolution 660 which denounced the
Iraqi invasion and urged an immediate withdrawal of the troops, to resolution 686 that stipulated provisions after the ceaseﬁre, the Security
Council passed more than ten resolutions concerning the crisis in sevenmonths. The unanimity of the permanent members seemed to point to a
rejuvenation of the United Nations.11
Second was the predominance of the United States in the policymaking process of the United Nations. While eagerly seeking the approval

54

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

of the Security Council, the United States never relegated its power todecide when and how to strike Iraq to any multilateral body. By carefully
orchestrating the Security Council to approve economic sanctions, andeventually, military actions, the United States succeeded in turning its
will into that of the United Nations. The international organization that
American policymakers had planned almost a half-century before wasat last coming into reality.12
Third was the reafﬁrmation in the belief that “right” must be accompanied by “might.” Vowing not to repeat the mistakes made in the Vietnam War, the Bush administration started the war with intensive air
bombings, keeping troops out until the very last minute. With the helpof carefully controlled press coverage, the Gulf War became a show ofspectacular air attacks, while gruesome scenes of death and destruction
were kept out of the public eye. The war, in other words, encouraged
those who believed that a country with superior technology and destructive weapons could not only enjoy victory but ﬁght humanely.13
On March 6, 1991, thirteen days after Iraq announced the withdrawal of its troops from Kuwait, President Bush appeared before Congress
to deliver a policy statement on the post-Gulf War world. After reiterating his administration’s commitment to peace in the Middle East, hewent on to say that a new world order, “where the United Nations, freed
from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulﬁll the historic vision of its founders” was coming into view. Four months later, in the political declaration of the Summit in London, the G7 joined in praising the revitalizationof the United Nations and reafﬁrmed their commitment to strengtheninternational order. The new order thus deﬁned enabled the United States
to pursue its interests while at the same time claiming to serve the interests of the world community as well.14
III

THE SEARCH FOR JAPAN’S ROLE IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER

During the Gulf War the U.S.-Japan relationship was severely tested.
After the end of the cold war, some people in Japan had started to question the rationale for the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, the main purposeof which had been the “containment” of communism. However, when
the Gulf War broke out, the controversy over the nature of the alliance
was replaced by the question of what kind of contribution Japan could
make to help the United States’ war effort. The war also intensiﬁed thedebate over what role Japan should play in the new world order.15

A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

55

Two concerns that had been circulating since the cold war years led
to the argument that Japan should break out of the old mold and act decisively in the Gulf War. One was that Japan had been too reluctant tocultivate a closer relationship with the United States. Recognizing theUnited States as the only remaining superpower in the post-cold war
world, and as Japan’s most important ally, those who believed instrengthening the U. S.-Japan alliance felt that the Gulf War provided an
opportunity not to be missed. The way in which the Bush administration
handled the crisis through the Security Council, they felt, should makeit easier for the Japanese government to extend support to the UnitedStates, since public opinion in Japan revealed a decided preference to act
under the auspices of the United Nations.16
The other concern was that Japan had been too subservient to theUnited States, too willing to play the role of a junior partner. For those
who wanted the United States and Japan to be more equal in their partnership, what Japan needed was to demonstrate its willingness to act
determinedly, if necessary, and to reassure the world that it would become a “normal country” that would employ force under appropriate circumstances. Beneath the explicit commitment to stand by the UnitedStates during the Gulf War, therefore, lay a strong nationalistic sentiment calling for an assertive foreign policy in order that Japan be accorded a proper status in the community of nations.17
The heated debate over how to respond to the Gulf crisis and how tomeet the United States’ demands for assistance left a deep impression
on the foreign policy establishment in Japan. A bill that would have enabled the Self Defense Forces to participate in the United Nations’ efforts
was introduced as early as October 1990, but amid the ensuing uproar
and criticism, it was abandoned within a month. Both within and outside
the government, there existed a wide range of people who adamantly
opposed sending military forces abroad. Meanwhile, the United States
was becoming increasingly irritated by what it perceived as tardiness andhairsplitting in the policymaking process in Japan. Caught between thetwo, the Cabinet, led by Hideki Kaifu, ﬁrst decided to contribute ﬁnancially by paying $13 billion to the United Nations’ effort, and then, after
the ceaseﬁre, sent minesweepers to the Gulf. This Japanese assistance,
coming “too little, too late,” however, was little appreciated, and bitterness and frustration were left among the policymakers.18
The inability of the Japanese government to formulate a coherent policy during the Gulf crisis provoked criticism and suggestions that would

56

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

dominate the debate over Japan’s foreign policy during the next decade.
First was the insistence that it was time to reexamine the Constitution,
especially article 9, which stipulated Japan’s renunciation of war. Thistendency to regard the Constitution as an obstacle inhibiting Japan fromplaying a more active role in the international community was by nomeans new. While the memory of World War II was still strong, however, it was considered taboo to question the appropriateness of that article. The Gulf War helped to lift the taboo, and increasingly, renowned
scholars and politicians came to insist that article 9, especially the second part, that stated Japan’s resolve not to maintain military forces, wasout of date and should be revised.19
Second was the argument that Japan’s attitude toward the right ofcollective self-defense stipulated in article 51 of the Charter should be
reevaluated. Throughout the Gulf crisis, the Japanese government, especially the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, maintained that while the right ofself-defense was guaranteed under the Japanese constitution, the right ofcollective self-defense was not. Therefore, Japan, despite its membership in the United Nations, had to abstain from any activities that might
be regarded as an exercise of the right of collective self-defense. Suchnarrow-mindedness, the critics claimed, was the very reason the international community held Japan in derision, and unless the government
retracted from that position, Japan would never be able to become aresponsible member of the United Nations.20
Third was a suggestion that Japan should actively seek a new identity for itself. For too long, the argument went, Japan had been complacent in playing the role of the only hibakukoku (country exposed to theatomic bombs) and a country with a paciﬁst constitution. For too long,
Japan had been hiding behind the U. S.-Japan alliance and had failed toformulate a foreign policy on its own. Considering such negligence disturbing, an increasing number of people came to think that Japan needed a more assertive foreign policy. The effort to obtain a permanent seaton the Security Council, undertaken by the Foreign Ministry in the early
1990s, may be seen as one example of this sentiment. The desire to see
more Japanese volunteering for the various jobs in the ﬁeld of international cooperation was another. The enactment in 1992 of the so-called
PKO law, that sanctioned Self Defense Forces’ personnel to participate
in the United Nations Peace Keeping activities, was, therefore, considered a signiﬁcant step in this direction.21
The Gulf War turned out to be crucial for Japan and its relationshipA GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

57

with the United States. It gave an impetus for Japan to experiment witha foreign policy not constrained by the old cold war framework or by the
U.S.-Japan alliance. Nonetheless, the disapproval by the United Statesof Japan’s performance during the war made the Japanese government
extremely anxious about how the United States would perceive Japan,
and more eager to meet the United States’ wishes. Japan, in other words,
wanted to be more independent of the United States, but at the same timeit also desired the approbation of the United States government.22
This desire of the Japanese government to act more independently
from the United States, however, may prove to be more superﬁcial thanreal when we examine the changing deﬁnitions of peace in Japan. Throughout the cold war, “peace” as deﬁned by the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty
had been sitting side by side somewhat uneasily with “peace” as ensconced in the Constitution. The idea entrenched in the alliance thatpeace depended upon the readiness to use military force if necessary,
was never openly recognized in domestic legislation or in ofﬁcial statements in Japan. The Gulf War, however, changed all that, and now Japanwas espousing its own idea of “peace,” which in fact resembled the idea
upheld by the United States. In opting for a peace that depended on force
rather than on “the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of theworld,” Japan was presenting itself as a more responsible ally of theUnited States.
IV THE EMERGENCE OF THE NATIONALIST GROUP
The overall perception of the world community that Japan had simply
written checks in order to escape from sending its troops to the Gulf left
a deep scar in the minds of many Japanese. Despite the contribution of
13 billion dollars, little appreciation was received from the United States
or elsewhere. In the list of countries that Kuwait thanked in an advertisement in the New York Times, Japan’s name was conspicuously missing.
The huge sum that Japan spent became a source of derision and resentment rather than something for which to be thanked. Not a few people
in Japan felt slighted and humiliated.23
Against such a background, there was an upsurge of nationalistic
movements in the mid-1990s. The most inﬂuential of these was arevisionist group called the Liberal View of History Study Group(Jiyushugi Shikan Kenkyukai) started in 1995 by Nobukatsu Fujioka, aprofessor of education at the University of Tokyo. Two years later,

58

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

Fujioka, Kanji Nishio, a scholar in German philosophy, and several otherlike-minded people, inaugurated the Society for the Making of New
School Textbooks in History (Atarashii Rekishi Kyôkasho O Tsukuru
Kai; hereafter Tsukuru Kai), in an effort to delete from the textbooks references to the various atrocities and war crimes that have been attributed
to the Japanese Empire. Tsukuru Kai, with the support of a popular cartoonist Yasunori Kobayashi and other prominent ﬁgures, quickly gained
momentum and came to enjoy a large following.24
Tsukuru Kai’s apparent target were the “liberal-leftist” intellectuals
and educators that they thought had exerted undue inﬂuence in postWorld War II Japan. They argued that the history and peace education
promoted by the Japan Teachers’ Union (Nihon Kyôshokuin Kumiai) in
secondary education was tainted with distortions and self-ﬂagellation.
Japan’s war in Asia and the Paciﬁc, according to them, had been fought
in order to liberate Asians from Western Imperialism, and to depict itotherwise was tantamount to succumbing to the victors’ perspective. We
must teach Japanese history focusing on the positive side, they insisted,because if young people cannot take pride in Japan, Japan will not be
respected in the world. Their publications, including Kyôkasho gaoshienai rekishi (History not taught in textbooks) and Kokumin no rekishi (History of the people), are permeated with rebuttals to those Asianpeople and their Japanese supporters who have attempted to expose war
crimes committed by the Japanese Empire, especially those concerning
the “comfort women” i.e. the sex-slaves for the military.25
Underneath these nationalistic claims lay a serious ambivalence toward the United States. Such ambivalence was demonstrated in Fujioka’s
works in the early 1990s, in which he vented his frustrations against
Japan which, according to him, was completely incapable of handlingthe Gulf crisis due to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. In thoseworks, he acknowledged the United States’ criticisms against Japan’s
performance and argued somewhat hastily that “opposition to America’s
war would mean approving the Iraqi invasion” of Kuwait. He also admitted that even if Japan’s economic assistance to the Allies was extremely generous, the world would remember Japan as a country that did notsend its forces to war. In other words, he had no scruples about condemning Japan in the terms used by the United States.26
Nevertheless, Fujioka and his group were reluctant to advocate closer cooperation with the United States. Their assumption that Japan’s war
in Asia and the Paciﬁc had been “just” naturally led them to regard theA GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

59

United States with hostility, since it had not only defeated Japan but had
also sought to rebuild Japan in its image. They also regarded the Constitution, “imposed” upon Japan by the United States, as the prime culprit that had taken away the sense of nationalism and pride from theJapanese people. Their prescription for curing Japan’s undesirable position in the world community, therefore, was not to strengthen Japan’s
partnership with the United States, but the invention of nationalistic narratives for the Japanese people, which can be attained instead by shaking off the yoke of the United States.27
Those nationalists represented by Tsukuru Kai, in fact, were trying toovercome two different United States, each of which had exerted anenormous inﬂuence on post-World War II Japan. One was the UnitedStates that had democratized and demilitarized Japan and “imposed” thepeace constitution. The other was the United States which regarded
Japan as a pawn in its cold war strategies in Asia and had pressured Japanto act as a junior partner in its bilateral alliance. According to the nationalists, the two United States had colluded in depriving Japan of its national identity and in making it completely subservient to the United States.
Stated differently, what ran against the grain with them most of all was
the immensity of the United States’ inﬂuence rather than any speciﬁc
policies the United States pursued.
In 1985, literary critic Nobuhiro Kato published a book entitled“Amerika” no kage (The shadow of “America”), in which he describedJapan’s ambivalence toward the United States. Analyzing contemporary
novelists such as Ryu Murakami and Yasuo Tanaka, and juxtaposing themwith a senior literary critic, Jun Eto, he explained that many writers in Japan
were caught between the desire to cast off the political and cultural inﬂuence of the United States and the desire to enjoy the economic prosperity and the good life which would be possible only if Japan remained
subservient to the United States politically and militarily. As a result, heargued, Japan was subjected to a profound sense of inferiority, or “weakness” vis-à-vis the United States, although such feelings were consideredtaboo—not to be mentioned in the post-World War II Japanese society.28
Tsukuru Kai and its supporters represent, in one sense, part of the tradition that has struggled with this taboo. However, there is a crucial difference separating Fujioka and his group from the writers mentioned in
Kato’s essays: Tanaka and other novelists considered the shadow ofAmerica as a product of history, especially the history of World War II.
Their efforts to come to terms with America were thus inseparable from60

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

their efforts to come to terms with Japan’s past in one way or the other.
The members of Tsukuru Kai, on the other hand, treated the shadow, as
well as Japan’s war guilt, as the inventions of the liberal-leftist intellectuals. For them, America’s shadow would disappear if Japan could adopt
a nationalistic narrative that would instill honor and pride in the Japanesepeople.
V

WHITHER THE PEACE ADVOCATES?

The end of the cold war and the Gulf War marked a turning point forpeace advocates in Japan as well. During the post-World War II years,
debates over the deﬁnition of peace were closely linked with the question of how to evaluate United States’ cold war strategies and what role
Japan should play in a world divided between two camps. Some peace
advocates perceived the United States as the perpetuator of the cold war
and chose the side of the Soviet Union. Many others, however, sought
to set one United States against the other. While enthusiastically endorsing the United States that had democratized Japan and gave it the peaceconstitution, they opposed the United States that sought to bring every
country under a network of military alliances, exempliﬁed by the U.S.Japan Security Treaty.29
When the cold war came to an end with the disintegration of the Soviet
Union, the group whose sympathies lay with the socialist bloc was shaken from its foundation. Especially drastic was the change that the Socialist Party went through. Already in 1987, the party accorded a de facto
recognition to the security treaty and the Self Defense Forces, shiftingfrom a policy of categorical denial of the two in the past. By 1994, whenits party leader Tomiichi Murayama became the head of a coalition government which included the Liberal Democratic Party as well as his own,
it came to describe the security treaty as the foundation of United StatesJapanese friendship and as indispensable for peace and stability in Asiaand the Paciﬁc. Many in the party came to argue that since the socialist
alternative was no longer valid, it was futile if not wrongheaded to criticize the United States as they had done during the cold war. In order toremain relevant domestically, as well as internationally, they concluded,
the party had to cast aside its old cliché of favoring neutrality and paciﬁsm.30
Despite such an atmosphere, some peace advocates continued to
uphold their opposition to the use of military forces, Japanese or any

A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

61

other. For those who regarded peace as an ultimate value, the use of military means in order to meet a military threat was self-defeating. Although, during the Gulf crisis, most of them decried the Iraqi invasionof Kuwait as a blatant violation of international law, they did not support the United States’ bombing of Iraq since, in their view, such support would have been tantamount to expressing support for the American
policymakers, who only seemed to understand the language of force.31
Among the peace advocates, however, there were those who thoughtthat Japan should participate more vigorously in international activities
while upholding the principles of the Constitution. One such was
Yoshikazu Sakamoto, a renowned scholar in international relations anda formidable critic of the United States’ cold war policies. In articles
compiled in Sôtaika no jidai (The age of relativism), he analyzed thestructural changes the world had gone through after the cold war andsuggested that the issues of peace and war facing Japan had also changed
drastically. Perceiving that the challenges confronting international society, such as ethnic conﬂicts, human rights violations, poverty, and natural disasters, have become increasingly diversiﬁed, he advocated thatJapan should participate in the United Nations peacekeeping missions
dispatched in order to prevent the breakdown of peace. It should be done,
he added, by creating a special force independent of the Self Defense
Forces, since he believed that sending the Self Defense Forces overseas
would be a violation of the Constitution and furthermore, would raiseanxiety in the Asian countries to which the Japanese government had not
yet properly apologized. Coming from a scholar regarded as the dean of
paciﬁsm, his suggestion made a considerable stir among the peace advocates.32
Despite Sakamoto’s efforts to revitalize Japan’s agenda for peace,
however, the tendency to marginalize the peace advocates continued.
The primary reason for this situation was that the majority of theJapanese people had come to take the U.S.-Japan alliance and the Self
Defense Forces for granted. The question of the constitutionality of thetwo, which had been the major source of contention that had kept alive
debates over the problem of war and peace for almost half a century, wasquickly becoming obsolete. In the post-cold war world, in which Japan’s
military alliance with the United States was interpreted as the basis ofstability and peace, it was difﬁcult for peace advocates to induce the public to consider the idea that there might be a different road to peace, otherthan the one based upon the idea of military deterrence.33

62

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

It was as if the discrepancy between the peace enunciated in theJapanese Constitution and the peace upheld by the U.S.-Japan military
alliance, that had troubled the peace advocates all along, had ﬁnally beenbrought to a head. They knew well that their claim that Japan, as the only
hibakukoku, should oppose wars in general and the nuclear arms race inparticular, was being constantly undermined by their government, which
was willing to hide underneath the United States’ nuclear umbrella.
While the peace constitution could muster the support of the majority
who simply abhorred war, the two positions could stand side by side,although somewhat uneasily. When the line separating peace and war
became blurred after the end of the cold war, however, the peace advocates became increasingly vulnerable to the criticism that their obsession with the dichotomy between war and peace made them out of stepwith the realities of a changing world.
VI 9.11 AND AFTER—QUESTIONS OF HISTORY
The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D. C. on September 11, 2001 galvanized both supporters and opponents of the U.S.
-Japan alliance. Because of the enormity of the attacks, there was an outpouring of sympathy and support towards the victims and the UnitedStates. The war in Afghanistan and the militant messages delivered
repeatedly by President George W. Bush, however, alienated the peace
advocates who became increasingly anxious about the way in which theUnited States was handling the crisis.
The response of the Japanese government to the attacks was quick anddecisive. Within ten days, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi announced
the basic principles and immediate measures to be taken by Japan in support of the United States’ ﬁght against terrorism, including the deployment of the Self Defense Forces to support the United States behind thebattle lines. Koizumi’s visit to New York on September 25, placed him
alongside such leaders as Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair and demonstrated the government’s resolution not to fall behind the world community in standing with the United States.34
After the bombing of Afghanistan started on October 7, the government stepped up its support of the United States. Koizumi repeatedlyemphasized in the Diet that terrorism could not be eradicated without thebombings, and amid an atmosphere of emergency, the Anti-Terrorism
Special Measure Law was enacted on October 29 without a lengthy

A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

63

debate. This legislation allowed the Self Defense Forces to provide logistic and other noncombatant support for the United States forces and others taking measures against terrorist attacks. Subsequently, several naval
vessels sailed to the Indian Ocean to provide fuel and other materials to
the United States’ forces.35
Many in Japan supported these decisions. For those frustrated by theprevious failure of the Japanese government to act quickly, Koizumi’s
response was reassuring. Newspapers and journals carried articles whichclaimed that the interests of the United States and those of Japan wereidentical, and that for the second time in a decade, the U.S.-Japan alliance was being put to the test. Many remembered the Gulf War and thecriticism leveled against Japan that it was selﬁshly pursuing “checkbook
diplomacy,” and vowed not to repeat the same mistake. The turmoil triggered by the newspaper reports that Assistant Secretary of Defense
Richard Armitage had demanded that Japan “show the ﬂag,” suggested
that quite a few people in the policymaking establishment were worried
about how the United States would evaluate Japan’s performance thistime.36
Meanwhile, on September 22, a small article by Ryuichi Sakamoto
appeared in the Asahi Shimbun. Sakamoto, an internationally acclaimed
musician and an Academy Award winner, gave his eye-witness accountof the attacks in New York and expressed his dismay that music, which
had disappeared from the city besieged by terror, might not be able to
do more than just to heal the afﬂicted. What caught the attention of thereaders, however, was his unequivocal urging of President Bush to
refrain from retaliation, since violence could only result in more violence. He also asked Prime Minister Koizumi to oppose any acts of war
that the United States might contemplate on the grounds that Japan hada paciﬁst constitution. Two months later, he published a book entitled
Hisen (No War) in which he compiled approximately ﬁfty messages
from people from all walks of life calling for peace.37
That Sakamoto’s messages found a sympathetic audience in Japan was
not surprising. While the government expressed its unwavering support
for the Bush administration, many in Japan were weary of militant messages coming from the United States. Although the news reports on television and in newspapers continued to depend upon the American mass
media and public ofﬁcials as their sources of information, the works
critical of the Bush administration written by Noam Chomsky, Susan
Sontag, and other people considered “marginal” in the United States

64

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

were quickly translated into Japanese. The derogatory practice of explaining American behavior as analogous to that of cowboys and sheriffs
in Western ﬁlms, once thought to be too banal and simplistic, reemergedin public discourse. Apparently, the temptation to see the United States
as a reckless, brash youth was too strong to be resisted.38
Once again, Japanese perceptions of the United States seem to bepolarized between identifying it as the most reliable exponent of worldorder and deeming it as the very source of world danger and instability.
Such a dichotomy, needless to say, has been in place for over half a century. What has distinguished the post-9.11 debates from those of earlier
times, however, is that despite President Bush’s assertion that the war
on terrorism is a war for democracy and civilization, few people in Japan
seem interested in discussing the values and ideals that the United States
is purporting to defend.
In explaining the outstanding features of the relations between the
United States and Japan, Shunsuke Kamei once coined the phrase: haibei
v. haibei. Although identical phonetically, these two words have opposite meanings in Japanese: admiration of the United States and rejectionof the United States. Kamei argued that from the Meiji period onwards,
the Japanese people saw in the United States an ideal of democracy andfreedom, and either yearned for it, or rejected it when they found out
that, after all, the United States was far from living up to its ideal. Referring to such ﬁgures as Christian educator Kanzo Uchimura and socialist
activist Sen Katayama, he argued that the oscillation between one haibei
and the other haibei has been one of the most conspicuous features of
U.S.-Japan relations.39
In the post-cold war years, however, the number of Japanese who arecaught in the haibei v. haibei dichotomy seems to be dwindling. In aworld in which ideological conﬂicts have ostensibly come to a close, theUnited States is regarded more as an economic and military superpower than as a champion of democracy and freedom. The Japanese people
who were born decades after the end of the World War II see in the UnitedStates not a model of democracy but one of wealth, power, and competitiveness. In other words, they are less constrained by the ambivalence
that held sway over the elder generation.
Such a trend provides the United States and Japan with both a chance
and a danger. If the United States could once again demonstrate thepower of its ideas and aspirations as distinct from its physical power,

A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

65

then there would be a chance for the United States and Japan to work out
a relationship that did not depend solely upon power-relations but upon
common efforts to ﬁnd an ideal that could be shared with other countries
as well. However, if the United States insists upon exerting its physicalpower in order to maintain its position of ﬁnal arbiter, anti-Americanism
may regain its strength in Japan and elsewhere. The United States, in thatcase, would have to relinquish its historic role as the “republic of ideas.”40
NOTES
1“Speech by Minister for Foreign Affairs Makiko Tanaka at the Ceremony inCommemoration of 50th anniversary of the Signing of the San Francisco Treaty,”
September 8, 2001, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (http://www.mofa.go.jp/
region/n-america/us/fmv0109/010908.html); homepage, U.S.-Japan 21st Century Project, http://www.usajapan.org/home/21st Century/html/commemorative/index.html.
2
For the debates over the Smithsonian exhibit, see Edward T. Linenthal and Tom
Engelheardt, History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past
(New York: Metropolitan Books, 1996) [translated by Sanzo Shimada, Sensô to seigi:
Enola Gay ten ronsô kara, Asahi Shimbunsha, 1998]; Martin Harwit, An Exhibit Denied:
Lobbying the History of Enola Gay (New York: Copernicus, 1996) [translated by Seizo
Yamaoka, Sumio Hara, Kazuko Watarai, Kyozetsu sareta genbakuten: rekishi no nakano
Enola Gay, Misuzu Shobo, 1997]; Michio Saito, Genbaku shinwa no 50nen: surechigau Nihon to Amerika [Fifty years of “the myth of the atomic bombs”: Japan andAmerica on different paths] (Tokyo: Chûokoron Shinsha, 1995).
3“Let’s Draw a New Blueprint,” Asahi Shimbun, September 8, 2001; “Deepen theStrategic Dialogue for Strengthening the Alliance,” Yomiuri Shimbun, September 7,
2001; “Independent Decisions Are Required,” Mainichi Shimbun, September 6, 2001;“Let’s Write a Sequel to the 50-Year Japan-U.S. Success Story, Nihon Keizai Shimbun,
September 5, 2001.
4
Statement by Senator Wendell H. Ford, May 18, 1995, “Excerpts from hearings of
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Journal of American History 82:3
(December 1995), 1141; Daizaburo Yui, Nichibei sensôkan no soukoku: masatsu no
shinsô shinri [The conﬂicting perceptions of wars in Japan and in the United States: theunderlying psychology behind the friction] (Iwanami Shoten, 1995), Introduction.
5
For debates over the deﬁnition of peace and war in Japan, see Takeshi Ishida, Nihonno seiji to kotoba II [Politics and language in Japan] (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press,
1989), Shoichi Koseki, “Heiwakokka” Nihon no saikento [Reevaluating Japan as the“paciﬁst country”], (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2002).
6
Tony Smith, America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for
Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994),
Chapter 10; see also J. L. Gaddis, The United States and the End of the Cold War:Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).
7
For example, Charles Krauthammer, “The Unipolar Moment,” Foreign Affairs:
America and the World 1990/1991 70:1 (1991), 23–33; Strobe Talbott, “Post-VictoryBlues,” Foreign Affairs: America and the World 1991/92 71:1 (1992), 53–69; DanielDeudney and G. John Ikenberry, “After the Long War,” Foreign Policy 94 (Spring1994), 21–35.

66

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

8Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press,
1992), especially “By Way of an Introduction.”
9
Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72:3 (Summer
1993) 22–50; id., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 1996), especially Chapter 1.
10
For the history of the Persian Gulf War, see Ken Matthews, The Gulf Conﬂict andInternational Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 1993); Lawrence Freedman
and Efraim Karsh, The Gulf Conﬂict, 1990–1991: Diplomacy and War in the New World
Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), and Robert W. Tucker and David
C. Hendrickson, The Imperial Temptation: The New World Order and America’s Purpose (New York: The Council of Foreign Relations Press, 1992).
11
For the text of the Security Council Resolutions regarding the crisis, see http://
www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm and http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/
scres91.htm.
12
For the relationship between the United States and the United Nations during the
Gulf War, see Robert W. Gregg, About Face?: The United States and the United Nations(Boulder, Colo. and London: L. Rienner Publishers, 1993), Chapter 5.
13
The contrast between the “air show” and the civil war in Bosnia intensiﬁed such perceptions. See, for example, Ronald Keegan, A History of Warfare (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1993), 384. The Attorney General under the Johnson administration, Ramsey
Clark, on the other hand, was a bitter critic of the controlled media coverage. Ramsey
Clark, The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf (New York: Thunder’s Mouth
Press, 1992).
14
George Bush, “Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Cessation of
the Persian Gulf Conﬂict,” March 6, 1991, National Archives and Records Administration, George Bush Presidential Library and Museum (http://www.bushlibrary.tamu.
edu/); London Summit, “Political Declaration: Strengthening the International Order,”July 16, 1991, G8 Information Centre, University of Toronto (http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/g7/summit/1991london/index.html).
15
Shigeto Tsuru, Nichibei anpo kaisho e no michi [The road to abrogating the U.S.Japan Security Treaty] (Iwanami Shoten, 1996); For an account of the Japanese policies
during the Gulf War, see for example, Takeshige Kunimasa, Wangansenso to iu tenkaiten: dôten suru Nihon seiji [The Gulf War as a turning point: Japanese politics in turmoil] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1999).
16
Motobumi Asai, Atarashii sekai chitsujo to kokuren: Nihon ha nanio nasubekika[The New World Order and the United Nations: what Japan should do] (Iwanami Shoten,1991), 3–18.
17
The word, “normal country” was used by Ichiro Ozawa in his book Nihon kaizo
keikaku published in 1993. See Takeshi Igarashi, Nichibei kankei to higashi ajia:
rekishiteki bunmyaku to mirai koso [The U.S.-Japan relationship in the context of East
Asian international affairs] (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1999), 176–177.
18
Richard F. Leitch, Jr., Akira Kato, and Martin E. Weinstein, Japan’s Role in the
Post-Cold War World (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995), 44–49; Yukio Okamoto,“Mata onajikotoni naranaika—moshi wangansenso ga mouichido okottara?” [Will we
see the same?—If the Gulf War broke out again], Gaiko Forum (September 2001),
12–20.
19
The Yomiuri Shimbun published its draft proposal for an amended constitution, theproduct of two years’ discussions, on November 3, 1994. See also, Yomiuri shimbunsha chôsa kenkyuhonbu, Teigenhôdo: Yomiuri Shimbun no chôsen [Reporting with suggestions: the challenges of the Yomiuri Shimbun], (Tokyo: Chûokoron Shinsha, 2002),

A GLOBAL SUPERPOWER OR A MODEL OF DEMOCRACY?

67

and “Toikake, mitsumeru sekai: dou egaku asuno Nihon,” [The world waits in question:
how will Japan draw its future?] Asahi Shimbun, May 3, 1992.
20
Yoshitaka Sasaki, “Nihon to wangansenso: ‘shûdan-anpo’ eno yûwaku,” [Japan and
the Gulf War: the temptation of ‘collective security’], Sekai, Special Edition (October1991): 79–84.
21
Leitch, Jr., Kato, Weinstein, op.cit., 43–49; For the Foreign Ministry’s effort toobtain a permanent seat in the Security Council, see, for example, Asahi Shimbun, October 9, 1992.
22
For the expression of ambivalence toward the United States, Yukio Okamoto,op.cit.; Koichiro Matsumoto, interviewed by Seiichi Kondo, “Sonotoki gaimusho wa
dou taioshitaka [How the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded then], Gaiko Forum(September 2001), 21–27. See also Yoichi Funabashi, “Kokusai kôken kara kokusai
rentai e,” [From international contribution to international solidarity], Asahi Shimbun,
September 27, 2001.
23
Leitch, Jr., Kato, Weinstein, op.cit., 45.
24
Gavan McCormack, “The Japanese Movement to ‘Correct’ History,” in Laura Heinand Mark Selden, eds., Censoring History: Citizenship and Memory in Japan, Germany,and the United States (Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe, 2000), 56–57; Laura Hein and Mark
Selden, “The Lessons of War, Global Power, and Social Change,” ibid., 25–27.
25
McCormack, loc.cit.; Hein and Selden, loc.cit.; Nobukatsu Fujioka and Jiyushugi
Shikan Kenkyukai, Kyôkasho ga oshienai rekishi 4 vols. (Tokyo: Fusosha, 1996–1997);
Kanji Nishio, Kokumin no rekishi (Tokyo: Fusosha, 1999).
26
Nobukatsu Fujioka, Ojoku no kingendaishi [Shameful modern history] (Tokyo:
Tokumashoten, 1996), 4–7; id., Kingendaishikyoiku no kaikaku: zendama-akudama
shikan o koete [Reforming the education in modern and contemporary history: going
beyond the history divided between good guys and bad guys] (Tokyo: Meiji Tosho,
1996), 12–13.
27
Fujioka, Kingendaishikyoiku no kaikaku, 29–30, 53.
28
Nobuhiro Kato, “Amerika” no kage (Tokyo: Kawadeshobo Shinsha, 1985, 1991),
7–38.
29
The term “peace advocates” connotes a broad range of people who supported thepeace constitution, opposed the cold war frame of mind, and were against the nuclear
arms race. They were not necessarily paciﬁsts—many of them might have condoned awar of self-defense while opposing Japanese participation in military conﬂicts beyond
national borders.
30
Yoshihisa Hara, Sengoshi no nakano shakaito [The Socialist Party in postwar history] (Tokyo: Chûokoron Shinsha, 2000), 317–320; Asahi Shimbun, July 21, 1994.
31
The issue titles of the journal Sekai, as well as the articles published therein reﬂected such perceptions. For example, “Hahei: fuminijirareta kempo” [Deployment: theConstitution in shatters] (December 1990), “Gosan no senso: darenotameno, nannotameno” [Miscalculated war: for whom, for what] (March 1991), “Senso no daisho” [Theprice of war] (April 1991); Also see Asaho Mizushima, Buryokunaki heiwa: Nihonkoku
kenpo no kôsôryoku [Peace without military force: the imaginative power of the JapaneseConstitution] (Iwanami Shoten, 1997).
32
Yoshikazu Sakamoto, Sotaika no jidai (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1997), originallypublished in Sekai (January 1997).
33
Such tendencies intensiﬁed when in 1997 the United States and Japan agreed upon
the new “Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation,” in which the two governments attempted to draw a blueprint for building a closer working relationship between
the U.S. Forces and the Self Defense Forces both under normal circumstances and during contingencies.

68

FUMIKO NISHIZAKI

34
For an overview, see Masahiko Hisae, 9/11 to Nihon gaiko [9.11 and Japanese foreign policy] (Tokyo: Kodansha, 2002); Embassy of Japan, Press Release, “Japan’s
Actions in Response to the Terrorist Attacks in the United States,” October 25, 2001
(http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/pressreleases/102501.htm)
35
For the text of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measure Law, see Asahi Shimbun,
October 30, 2001. Also, Embassy of Japan, Press Release, “The Cabinet-Approved AntiTerrorism Special Measure Bill,” October 5, 2001 (http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/
pressreleases/100501–3.htm).
36
Hisae, op.cit., especially Chapters 1 and 3; “Show the Flag,” Mainichi Shimbun,
December 27, 2001.
37
Ryuichi Sakamoto, “Hôfuku shinai noga shin no yûki,” [To not retaliate would betrue courage], Asahi Shimbun, September 22, 2001; Ryuichi Sakamoto and “sustainability for peace,” ed., Hisen [No War] (Tokyo: Gentosha, 2001).
38
For example, Noam Chomsky, 9.11 (Tokyo: Bungeishunjusha, 2001); Edward Said,
Senso to puropaganda [War and propaganda], 3 vols. (Tokyo: Misuzu Shobo, 2002–3);
Susan Sontag, Kono jidai ni omou tero eno manazashi [Perspectives on terrorism in thisage] (Tokyo: NTT Shuppan, 2002); Kiichi Fujiwara, Demokurashi no teikoku [Theempire of democracy] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2002)
39
Shunsuke Kamei, Amerika bunka to Nihon: “haibei” to “haibei” o koete [American
culture and Japan: beyond “admiration” and “rejection”] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,
2000); Shunsuke Kamei, “Nihonjin no Amerika ron” [The Japanese perceptions ofAmerica], in Meriken kara Amerika e: Nichibei bunka koshoshi oboegaki [From“Meriken” to “America”: notes on the history of U.S.-Japanese cultural interchanges](Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979), Chapter 2.
40
Nagayo Honma, Rinen no kyowakoku [The republic of ideas] (Tokyo: Chuokoronsha,
1976).