Taro Kono, a front-runner in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) presidential race and the former Japanese foreign minister, announced in September that he would consider recognizing Palestine as a state should he be made prime minister. Since the LDP has controlled Japan virtually continuously since 1955, the role of party leader is essentially equivalent to that of prime minister. A significant change in Japanese policy toward Palestine and the Middle East in general would have been indicated by Kono taking the helm of the LDP.
In the end, Shigeru Ishiba became prime minister and the leader of the party when Kono was unable to secure the required backing. Among other things, Kono has long lacked the backing of the LDP’s right flank; thus, his position on Palestine was scarcely his main platform and most definitely not the cause of his defeat. However, his stance on Palestine was widely known, and it is noteworthy that a viable national leader would back such a course of action.
After a diplomatic spat in August when Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki declared that the Israeli ambassador to Japan would not be invited to the city’s yearly peace event, Kono’s decision about Palestine followed suit. The municipal administrations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two towns hit by US atomic bombs during World War II, perform annual events to honor the fallen and demand world peace. All of Japan’s foreign ambassadors laid wreaths during the proceedings, which were livestreamed on national television.
Why does Japan depend on the US?
East Asia is the primary location for advancing Japanese interests. Although North Korea and Russia are often seen as threats, China has long been viewed by Japan as its main strategic, military, economic, political, and even social challenge. Overall, the argument is that Japan needs a credible military deterrence because East Asia is a challenging area. On the other hand, Japan is a very pacifist nation. Its postwar constitution, which was drafted and enforced by the US occupation, forbids the use of force to resolve international conflicts and even places restrictions on Japan’s ability to keep and utilize military forces.
The pacifist provisions of the constitution and the peaceful settlement of international conflicts through multilateral fora like the United Nations are strongly supported by the majority of Japanese opinion polls.
Japan had the option of remaining neutral and promoting global peace and security for everybody through multilateralism and international diplomacy. It chose to side with the United States instead. Though not an autonomous actor, many Japanese have been working for decades to further the nation’s remilitarization. Instead, Japan wants to be seen as a partner in the US military alliance, although a minor but significant one.
There are still 85 American military installations and sites in Japan. The facilities are funded in significant quantities by the extremely generous Japanese, who justify their existence on the dubious pretext of “protecting Japan.”
Japan’s relationship with Palestine and the Middle East
The Japanese elite consider the Middle East and, in particular, Palestine, as a distraction to East and Southeast Asia. Most Japanese citizens are unaware of or do not place much importance on the issues of the Middle East, and the country does not have any strong historical, religious, or social connections with the region. However, since Japan imports 95 percent of its oil needs from the Middle East, the country relies heavily on energy sources in the region, and hence, good relations with Iran and other Arab states, which export oil products, are of paramount importance.
Japan has also at times voted contrary to the desire of the US at the UN, as it recalls the necessity of distancing itself from extreme US opinion. As an example, in 2012, in a disputable decision of the General Assembly, Japan voted to admit Palestine as a non-member observer state. Japan has never been naive, though, in regard to going overboard. At the United Nations, it may occasionally defy US wishes, but it tries to explain its decisions in terms that Americans can comprehend.
Despite being the biggest bilateral donor to the International Criminal Court, Japan has not always been enthusiastic about the court’s prosecution of Israeli atrocities. The Japanese stance has been to stay out of the way.
What is the role of Gaza in Japan?
The more aggressive and nationalistic government of Shinzo Abe, which competed and governed Japan between 2012 and 2020, started to take more openly pro-Israeli positions. Abe was a right-wing intellectual who was committed to the remilitarization of the country and the revision of the constitution. Abe abandoned his predecessors’ consensus-based approaches. His government passed highly contentious measures that gave Japan’s military wider freedom of action, primarily to fight with US forces even in the absence of an attack, despite his eventual failure to amend the constitution.
Although Abe never used those exact words, he was aware that a closer military relationship with the US implied closer ties with other US allies, including Israel. Hosting high-profile summits with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and signing a cooperation agreement, especially in the military sphere, Abe abdicated the historically passive stance toward the Middle East and pursued with vigor closer relations with Israel. Corporate Japan was strongly encouraged to forge connections with Israeli businesses, especially those involved with technology and the military. Even after he resigned in 2020 due to claims of cronyism and corruption, the policies of Abe towards Israel have remained. It seemed that Israel and Japan were going to make a strong alliance until October 2023.
Pro-Palestinian organizations in Japan criticized the policies of the Abe administration toward Israel, of course, but they were relatively insignificant and could not influence the mass consciousness. The core of pro-Japanese Palestinian activists (in fact, of the peace-related activists in the country, on the whole) consisted of retired seniors who had joined the student movement in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Generally speaking, the tactics were outdated, and groups were perceived as being associated with opposition political parties or even left-wing extremist organizations, whether this was true or not.
How has the Japanese public reacted?
The government has been caught off guard and is now in a difficult situation. While the United States expects Japan to follow a policy that supports Israel, public opinion demands that the government adopt a more proactive approach toward peace. The balance has been shifting more and more due to public pressure.
Following October 7, Japan’s first response in terms of voting patterns in the UN fora was to revert to its default position, which was in line with US viewpoints. However, Japan modified its position as public demand to stop Israeli atrocities became too strong to ignore.
Other signs point to the public’s pressure on Japan to adopt a more pro-Palestinian posture. In a statement released immediately following the International Court of Justice’s verdict in late January that Israel was plausibly guilty of genocide, the Japanese foreign minister said that the ruling “is legally binding on all parties … and to be observed in good faith.” The Japanese “encouraged Israel to act by international law, including international humanitarian law,” as well as called for freeing the Israelis held by Hamas, which can be interpreted as having concerns about the situation. A few days later, Itochu, a major Japanese trading firm, announced that it was terminating its contract with the Israeli military giant Elbit because of the ICJ ruling.
Final words
An independent position in the Middle East may once again be low on the priority list, as the next prime minister, Ishiba, is renowned for his emphasis on East and Southeast Asian security matters. For the foreseeable future, any Japanese government’s reliance on the US military alliance will undoubtedly continue to be crucial. However, it is indisputable that American (and Chinese) influence in the Middle East is declining, and Japan’s foreign policy may be affected in unanticipated ways by the US elections in November. However, it appears likely that the trend in Japan, as in Western nations, is unmistakable: the public is indignant about Israeli transgressions of international law and will not tolerate the government’s complicity in those crimes.
Overall, Japan’s position on Palestine may not be able to change, while the government’s approach to the public may vary marginally in response to certain events.
