Japan Notebook/ Yoshibumi Wakamiya: Don't repeat the mistakes involving dual power

Dear Mr. Ichiro Ozawa:

In June 2008, you agreed to my request for an interview. As the president of the Democratic Party of Japan at the time, you called for "a revolution" through a change of government. Perhaps it was an unexpected miscalculation that you had to step down as party president over a political donation scandal less than a year later. But you supervised the Lower House election this summer and led the DPJ to a landslide victory, finally realizing your long-cherished wish. Let me offer my congratulations, albeit belatedly.

It is my guess that deep inside, you are relieved that you did not have to become prime minister. Am I not right? A prime minister would be chased around day in and day out by reporters who shower him or her with questions.

In the Diet, a prime minister takes the brunt of attacks by the opposition. It is difficult for a prime minister to act stealthily whereas the secretary-general of a ruling party can wield real power over the Diet and the party. Apparently, the latter post comes more naturally to you.

Your recent comments on the hastily arranged meeting between visiting Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping and Emperor Akihito stirred controversy. If the government wants to arrange a meeting between the emperor and a foreign dignitary, it is required by protocol to file a request with the Imperial Household Agency at least 30 days in advance.

However, the administration ignored it and made an exception in favor of Xi. Shingo Haketa, grand steward of the agency, took the government's defiance of the "30-day rule" as political intervention and made a comment of protest: "I don't want this to ever happen again."

After you heard the comment, you angrily told a news conference: "What is an official of a bureau of the Cabinet saying? If he wants to object, he should do so after turning in his resignation."

Perhaps you had a reason for your reaction. Still, I was surprised that you would make such a harsh comment against the grand steward, who is in a position to protect the emperor.

I was reminded of the time Hu Yaobang visited Japan in 1983 and delivered the first speech in the Diet by a Chinese government leader. While Hu was general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party at the time, the Japanese government initially informed the Chinese side of its plan to have him speak in the Diet members' dining hall and not the Diet itself, saying, "Even if he is a leader of the party, there is no precedent for a foreign dignitary who is not a representative of a state to speak in the Diet."

However, Hu was China's de facto No. 1 man. The Chinese Embassy in Tokyo entreated the Japanese government that such treatment would cause China to lose face. In the end, then Foreign Minister Shintaro Abe said, "I understand."

Abe worked behind the scenes to win the support of pro-Taiwan Diet members and had Hu speak at a plenary session of the Lower House. Considering the importance of Japan-China relations, it was the right decision. As a result, Abe increased his political clout as a promising candidate for prime minister.

Breaking protocol

You must have made a similar judgment, that it is unwise to allow rigid precedents and rules to stand in the way and undermine national interests.

Still, this is a subtle problem that has to do with how the emperor system should be. Instead of speaking so high-handedly, you could have spoken more moderately and said something like: "I thought the grand steward of the Imperial Household Agency is a loyal man who pays close attention to the emperor's health. But since the next-generation top leader of an extremely important neighbor is coming to visit Japan, I would like the emperor to meet him at any cost. This is not an idea of a single Cabinet or a political party but is an important matter that could affect Japan's future. I also think the decision is in accord with common sense. While the 30-day rule may be observed as a general principle, is it also not the role of the grand steward to respect such wishes of the prime minister and act accordingly?"

Still, I expect opinions would be divided, but expansion of needless friction could have been avoided. What good would it do to further stimulate the opposition Liberal Democratic Party and involve the emperor in a political dispute?

To begin with, the Imperial Household Agency showed displeasure because it was suddenly informed of "the prime minister's will" when Xi's visit was imminent. Previously, the agency had the understanding from Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano that the meeting would be difficult because of the 30-day rule.

The situation shows the Cabinet lacked consistency. But the situation drastically changed once the Chinese ambassador petitioned you. The development made us realize the dual-power structure was in place. It was little wonder the situation raised suspicions that you even control the emperor's meetings with foreign dignitaries.

There is another point I wish to address. It was unfortunate that you happened to visit China with a huge entourage of more than 600 people just before Xi's visit. Moreover, you had as many as 143 Diet members meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Each lawmaker shook hands with Hu and had their pictures taken with the Chinese leader.

The president is the head of state who can be considered the emperor's counterpart.

I don't want to think that meeting was meant to offset the preferential treatment given to Vice President Xi. But watching the scene on television, I could not help but feel somewhat embarrassed.

Apparently because of time constraints, I heard members of your entourage were told not to present business cards or to speak. That reminds me of the time when some Japanese politicians visited the United States and asked for a meeting with the president, even for a minute. U.S. government officials in Washington laughed off the requests because all the Japanese politicians wanted was to have their pictures taken. I don't understand why you of all people who despise such behavior did what you did.

Hatoyama being tested

Three months have passed since the Hatoyama administration emerged with a bang. With the problem of the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma still up in the air, Japan-U.S. relations are facing difficulties. The state of the economy is also serious and the budget bill for fiscal 2010 is set to face a revenue shortage on an unparalleled scale. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's leadership is being tested in many policy areas.

It was during the administration of Morihiro Hosokawa, which was established 16 years ago, that a Japan-U.S. summit broke down over economic issues and a power struggle surfaced within the coalition government over a proposal to introduce a national welfare tax.

Hosokawa's political donation scandal dealt a "body blow" to the coalition government. The current situation surrounding Hatoyama resembles that of Hosokawa, doesn't it? Back then, you were the secretary-general of the now-defunct Japan Renewal Party, the key party of the ruling coalition. At various junctures, you made your presence felt behind the scenes just as you do now.

Incidentally, your aide's trial over dubious political donations has started. This must also be a headache for you. At any rate, please be careful not to repeat the same mistake like the last time, when Hosokawa abandoned his job as prime minister and efforts to maintain the coalition failed. Please forgive me for my rudeness.

* * *

The author is an Asahi Shimbun columnist.(IHT/Asahi: December 30,2009)