DIALOGUE: OKAMOTO TALKS TO ARMITAGE_"I WANT TO BE SURE TO TELL THE TRUTH"

Richard Lee Armitage,
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

Yukio Okamoto
President, Okamoto Associates, Ltd.

Armitage: Fine, let's go.

Okamoto: The United States and Japan are in what one would expect to be an extremely important alliance. However, to be blunt, compared to countries considered to be in America's innermost circle such as Britain, Canada and Australia, Japan is only in its secondary circle. Even so, during the mid-1980s, there was a moment when the relationship between the two seemed closer than that between the United States and Europe. With the end of the Cold War, however, the main factors keeping the United States and Japan close together were removed and change has taken place.

Armitage: The reason why the United States and Japan are allies is not because they share similar opinions, but because the two nations have common interests. Since those shared interests were stronger at the start of the Cold War, the alliance was healthier during the Cold War.

There are two answers to your question. First, from the point of view of the majority of intellectuals, the importance of Japan to America lies in the fact that Japan belongs to what you call the innermost circle. However, during certain periods of the Bush and Clinton administrations, people in the U.S. government did not understand Japan's central role in foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan's importance has thus come to be viewed as secondary. However, I think Japan's cooperation is absolutely necessary if the United States wants to play an active role in preserving security in the region.

Okamoto: From America's point of view, Japan is only one of tens of allies, but as seen from Japan, America is its only ally. Therefore, Japan seems to subconsciously expect as much attention in return as it gives the United States, but perhaps this difference in each country's perception of the other is unavoidable.

Armitage: It is true that the Japanese are keenly aware of the importance of their relationship with the United States. In contrast, the countries and regions to which Americans pay attention vary from day to day, depending on where the current problems lie. However, while America cannot constantly shower Japan with affection, there is no need for Japan to worry about the fundamental stability of the relationship. It's just like the relationship between husband and wife in Japan [laugh].

Okamoto: Ha ha ha, you really know a lot about Japan, don't you! What bothers me is that at the end of the Cold War, when America declared its intention to quickly restructure its relationships worldwide, the East Asia policy that America was pursuing in 1991 simply vanished. And that's when China came into the picture.

China is an appealing market for anybody, but particularly in America, the business community has decisively increased its influence in terms of how China is viewed. The need to maintain good relations with this new power that has suddenly emerged has become the top priority. Perhaps the reason America did not come forward with a new Asian policy at the time was due to the lack of a direct threat to American interests in the region. At the same time, since Japan tends to simply keep the status quo in the absence of U.S. pressure, a new framework to respond to the changed situation has not emerged.

Armitage: What you have just said is a fair criticism of both the United States and Japan. Certainly, a new strategy has not emerged in America in the 10 years following the end of the Cold War, despite the breaking out of a series of problems in Europe: Bosnia, Kosovo, Tajiskistan, Chechnya and Georgia. America failed to formulate a policy for dealing with them, continuing instead, to behave as if the Cold War framework were still in place. Perhaps America's vision only extends 30 yards ahead.

Okamoto: In the last 25 years, or perhaps longer, America has been very friendly toward Japan, but just what kind of country does America think Japan is? I don't think that the Japan-U.S. relationship should be relegated to secondary importance. Rather, it should assume primary importance, but I wonder, is it really possible?

Armitage: First, as an American, I respect Japan. However, the relationship between the two countries is not a love affair. In my own experience, I did not simply decide to shower Japan with affection 25 years ago, but since Japan was an important country for America's national interest, I came to believe in the importance of the U.S.-Japan relationship.

In order for Japan to join the innermost circle, two things have to happen. Actually, there are three, but the third is something that I really do not want to see happen.

Okamoto: Hmm, let's hear it.

Armitage: The first thing that has to happen is that the American political system must return to one more influenced by Republican thinking, with greater emphasis on security matters. The second is that Japan must continue the ensuing domestic debate concerning Japan's current, as well as desired, role and position in the international arena. This started with its experiences during the Gulf War. For example, the debate over United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) is still continuing and apparently, two committees have been formed to review Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which renounces war. The Japanese people should become active in this debate and I think that in the end, Japan will become a stronger country and will become more interested in events happening across the world.

Okamoto: What is the third thing?

Armitage: The third thing is the possibility that the United States and Japan will be forced, by external factors such as North Korea, China and the Senkaku Islands, into a situation in which they have to make urgent decisions regarding cooperation. In the event that military factors are introduced onto the scene, the importance of the alliance will assume top priority. The countries that you mentioned as belonging to America's inner circle are those that have relatively recently fought alongside the United States, shared common hardships and experienced in the spilling of blood.

Okamoto: I have a feeling that the trauma of the Gulf War is still affecting relations between the United States and Japan.

Armitage: Trauma is too strong a word. I think ﾒhangoverﾓ is more appropriate. Moreover, this hangover is lingering stronger in the Japanese than in the Americans. The reason for this was the image that had emerged that as far as international cooperation was concerned, Japan was considered a mere "bank-roller," and did not deserve to be called a great power. However, as a result of the sensitivities at that time, changes are taking place in Japan, even if only in the form of symptomatic treatment. America welcomes this.

Okamoto: Japan is still half a step behind. Whereas most Americans use the term diaoyutai, you are one of the few who use the word "Senkaku." One's basic standpoint differs depending on whether the term "Falklands" or "Malvinas" is used. In Japan, the general attitude is that even with the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty in place, we would not even be able to defend the Senkaku Islands. America's attitude has wavered on this issue.

Armitage: When this problem emerged, the Americans who were dealing with it did not understand the history of the problem. If they had understood the history, they would have understood that the Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory and thus clearly fall within the scope of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty. This is the fact of the matter. Therefore, if America appeared easily swayed, it was because American diplomats and those in the State Department were either negligent or afraid to tell the truth.

WHAT WAS VIETNAM TO YOU?

Okamoto: Why is Mr. Armitage so bold about telling the truth? [laugh] The truth can lead to criticism, and doesn't this make people uncomfortable?

Armitage: I always want to know that the person I am talking to, whether friend or foe, is telling me the truth. In the 25 years that I have been dealing with Japan, I have had to say some things that the Japanese did not like, that they did not want to hear. But I can assure you that what I am saying today is the same that I will say tomorrow. I won't change my story just because I am talking to a different person.

Okamoto: For as long as I have known you, you have never changed your position. Years ago, I learned from you that I must never be afraid to state that there is nothing that can replace this alliance. Today, I say the same thing to my socialist and labor union friends. Of course, they disagree with my views, but if I can make it clear that I truly believe in what I am saying, the criticism becomes surprisingly weak. In America, there are many people who feel the same way you do. Even if they are made to feel a bit uncomfortable in certain situations, they hold true to their views and opinions. Where do you get the strength to advocate patriotism and freedom so ardently? Is it because of a religious background?

Armitage: Let me answer this as an ordinary American. America is a country that was built by people seeking religious and political freedom. The founders of America were a minority in resisting England's colonialism and had to believe strongly in what they were doing to move in the direction that they did. Therefore, most Americans strongly believe that they, too, can change the direction that the world is moving in, regardless of whether or not they are part of a minority. This is the first reason.

Second, America's security has always been provided for by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Since security has been guaranteed in this way, people have been able to speak freely about what they believe in without fear. Thus, Americans strongly defend and encourage that freedom of speech.

Okamoto: What about the part, "Armitage tells the truth"? [laugh]

Armitage: From the anger and suffering that I went through when I served in Vietnam, I believe that telling the truth is absolutely indispensable. When America moved into Vietnam, the country was split in two because people had difficulty telling the truth. When I die, I will perhaps be criticized in a number of ways: perhaps people will say that Armitage should have been a better father or a better husband, or that he should have worked harder. That doesn't bother me. However, I never want to hear anybody say that Armitage should have told the truth.

Okamoto: What was Vietnam to you?

Armitage: Vietnam plunged America into an extremely complicated situation unnecessarily. The idea that we had to prevent the spread of communism was correct, but the problem was in how we went about doing so. I learned many things from the difficulty that the government had in telling the people the truth. I think that America would have won if Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon had told the truth.

Okamoto: Do you mean that America could have won militarily?

Armitage: No, America did not lose militarily to North Vietnam. It lost politically. America lost in the peace negotiations, not on the battlefield. In the Christmas bombing of 1972, we felt that North Vietnam was on the brink of conditional surrender. However, America lost. The government failed to tell the people the truth and the lies and deceit that materialized led to the age of Watergate. Since then, there has been a mistrust of government and it continues to this day. Therefore, people like me, who are interested in politics, have a duty to tell the truth no matter how much we might be criticized. I hope that as time goes by, the stain of falsehood will disappear and that, in turn, the stain of mistrust between the American government and the people will be removed.

Okamoto: You are saying something very interesting. I thought that America had been on the military defensive since the Tet Offensive of 1968.

Armitage: That was not the case. America was just one step short of military victory.

Okamoto: What effect did the split in American opinion have on American security policy?

Armitage: I think that the net impact on American security policy was positive. First of all, America now thinks about what is really best for America: whether it is better to always play the leader in intervention, going straight in with weapon in hand, or whether it might sometimes be better for America to limit its role and merely support the actions of other countries. In this way, the U.S. has learned that it must take into serious consideration just how it will go about protecting the national security of other countries. Secondly, the U.S. now recognizes how important it is to obtain the support of the American people prior to military intervention. And thirdly, when military intervention does take place, there is now always a strategy for pulling out of that intervention. Furthermore, the pullout must be accomplished in a way that also safeguards American national interest.

Okamoto: So you think that the sacrifice of Marines was not in vain.

Armitage: That is correct. That question has always been debated, but in Asia it has become more complicated because of the sheer size of China. China provides economic opportunity, but it can also cause concern. Unfortunately, there is no security organization that can deal with that problem, and I do not see any enthusiasm for forming such an organization. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is not a suitable forum for discussing such issues; the only countries that could play significant roles in the region are America, Japan and Australia.

Okamoto: Then why did America, which moved into Bosnia without hesitation, avoid involvement in East Timor?

Armitage: I do not know in which foreign problems America is prepared to intervene at this time as each administration formulates its own regional policies during the time it is in power. However, what I do want to say here is that East Timor is a poor region with a population of 800,000 while its adversary, Indonesia, has a population of 210 million. Given this marked gap, it is understandable that the United States would not want its relations with Indonesia to be marred by this problem. At the same time, however, while America does not have any strategic interests in East Timor, given its alliance with Australia, the U.S. would feel considerable pressure to support this ally through interference.

Okamoto: Just what is at the base of America's national interest? Is it human rights and democracy, or is America pursuing pure national interest? If democracy is the gauge by which the U.S. determines how it will act in certain situations, then why is it that, for example, while there is little difference between Myanmar and China, America is harsh in its criticism of one and soft on the other?

Armitage: Let's wait a minute here. That's a completely different problem. The Myanmar government does not maintain a free market economy or an equal opportunity system. Under China's present political leadership, however, the free market and capitalist systems are gradually changing and developing.

Okamoto: So are you saying that America decides whether or not to impose sanctions depending on if that country has a market economy?

Armitage: The market economy will eventually bring about change in China's political system. There are various kinds of American intervention and the basis for intervention differs accordingly. However, in any type of intervention, there must be a basic objective. One such objective is to leave a particular region in better condition than that in which it was found.

Okamoto: What I want to ask is why America is imposing sanctions on Myanmar.

Armitage: Why? The reasons are simple. First, in Myanmar there was an appealing pro-American type of heroine in Aung San Suu Kyi. Then, America was prodded into action by a vocal minority that pressed its case strongly. Then, there is the fact that it was easy for America to decide to intervene in Myanmar, where few competing American interests would be affected.

IS SOMETHING NEW BEING BORN IN ASIA?

Okamoto: It's clear, isn't it? Several weeks ago, I visited several Asian countries as a member of a mission, and had the opportunity to talk with several Asian leaders. It seems to me that a new awareness is being born in Asia and that the threshold that is being crossed as we move into the year 2000 is not just a number. I have a feeling that 10 years after the end of the Cold War, something new is emerging in Asia.

Armitage: I also think that conditions in Asia are changing quite rapidly and it has become impossible to maintain the status quo. As you stated, a new, more assertive Asian nationalism is being born, and I think this is a good trend. Japanese nationalism should start with a decision of what, concretely, is in the national interest and acting in accordance with that decision. It is completely different from the nationalism that has existed since World War II.

I believe that the existence of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty has played a role in bringing about this new awareness in Asia, and declining trust in China throughout Asia has further accelerated this trend.

Okamoto: True. However, nationalism has brought about some difficulties in Asia, in particular, regarding Japan-China relations. Today, when China's communism has lost its appeal to the masses, there is likely to be a concerted effort to replace it with nationalism. Since Chinese nationalism is anti-foreign, in particular anti-Japanese, this gives us reason to be concerned.

Armitage: I certainly hope that your predictions will turn out to be off-target. Perhaps it is true that nationalism will be the only thing that can unite the people of China. However, I would hope that Chinese leaders think coolly about China's security arrangements. If they do, they will realize that cooperation with America and Japan is the best policy. The Pacific Ocean is vast and I think that China is going to realize that it is to its advantage to have allies in this vast region.

Okamoto: You gave me an excellent closing comment, just as I expected. Thank you very much.

Postscript

Armitage is often called the guardian god (with a diabolical feature) of the U.S.-Japan relationship, which is not altogether an exaggeration. Armitage saved the U.S.-Japan relationship on many occasions. His experience as a Marine in the Vietnam War has greatly influenced his beliefs and his life-style. It was a decade of extreme confusion in values in America as soldiers, students and hippies alike groped for their own respective ideals, raising their own flags into the sky.

A family man, Armitage has foster children of different backgrounds and does not spare them his love. Behind his bold actions there is always morality.

This dialogue series, which has benefited from everyone's support, has now run for 50 installments. I asked for the participation of this man for the closing from across the ocean. I thank him for accepting.

Yukio Okamoto

2000, Gaiko Forum English Edition