U.S. alliance offers great benefits-and risks

Yoichi Funabashi, The Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo

It was raining in Hakone when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi met recently with his British counterpart, Tony Blair.

A disappointed Koizumi assured him, "On a sunny day, this room commands a great view of Mount Fuji."

Despite being informed he could dress casually for the meeting, Prime Minister Blair chose to wear a tie.

Blair is facing a serious political crisis. With no weapons of mass destruction yet uncovered in Iraq, Britain and the United States are fending off a firestorm of criticism from the international community for exaggerating the threat and using it to wage war.

Some have also accused Blair of hounding a British scientist to death. The scientist, who leaked information to the press about the manipulation of Iraq's military capability, committed suicide. By fighting side by side with the U.S., Blair has stuck to traditional British policy: Maintain close ties with the U.S. as a means of preserving some measure of influence over it. This policy, however, backfired in the case of the Iraq war.

During his recent U.S. visit, Prime Minister Blair was invited to address the U.S. Congress, the fourth British prime minister, after Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher to receive this honor. He was given an overwhelming reception by the entire chamber.

In his address, Blair commented that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, had just shown him "the fireplace where, in 1814, the British had burnt the Congress Library."

"I know this is, kind of, late, but sorry," he said, stirring laughter.

In addition to the English language, another factor that makes the U.S.-British alliance strong is their shared sense of humor.

However, this doesn't mean all alliances of English-speaking nations are the same.

Australia, under Prime Minister John Howard, toes the line laid down by the U.S. even closer than Britain. Howard has said that Islamic fundamentalists pose a long-term threat to the Western way of life and stressed that the Australia-U.S. alliance is one that shares the same values. His comment that he would not hesitate to launch a pre-emptive attack to counter terrorism aroused criticism among Southeast Asian countries with large Muslim populations. Australia is acting as America's "deputy sheriff." Asian countries are increasingly put off by Australia's diplomacy of jingoism. Even Australians are deriding their alliance with the U.S., calling it an overly aggressive alliance between overly aggressive countries.

Australia's strong inclination to support the U.S. may be setting an example for Japan-of what not to do. Instead of blindly following the U.S., Japan should make use of its U.S. alliance to promote the building of a multilateral framework in Asia.

What about Canada?

On this occasion, Canada did not dispatch troops to Iraq because the war did not have the official approval of the United Nations and other international bodies. As a result, the U.S. is making no attempt to conceal its "strong disappointment." U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that it would take time to mend bilateral relations. Some observers are even calling it is the most serious diplomatic rift since the Cuban missile crisis 40 years ago, when the U.S. was enraged at Canada's refusal to offer its support.

When I spoke with Canadian Foreign Minister William Graham during his recent visit to Japan, he admitted taking a lot of heat not only from the U.S. but Canadian neocons as well. But, he asked rhetorically, what serious retaliatory actions could the U.S. possibly take against Canada? Canada, he stressed, is the U.S.' top trading partner, and so any reprisals would also end up hurting the U.S. itself.

"A Canada that can say no" is a very appealing role model. However, unlike Canada, which has no security threats bristling on its borders, Japan is facing North Korea's nuclear and missile threats. Japan, which is far more dependent on the safety and stability of the Asia-Pacific region, still needs to rely on alliances to ensure deterrence and defense.

At the Japan-Britain summit, Prime Minister Blair said that even though the U.S. was beginning to show signs of reverting to its pre-9/11 internationalism, he nonetheless urged the reform of the United Nations and the Security Council to keep U.S. unilateralism in check. At the same time, he called Japan a natural partner in Asia of Britain and the U.S. and expressed the hope it would fulfill its role as another stable world power. With Japan gearing up to send Self-Defense Forces to Iraq, perhaps the Japan-U.S. alliance Blair envisions runs along the same lines as the one his nation shares with the U.S..

But that's asking for too much. There is no ready-made model for Japan to copy. Japan has no choice but to form an alliance that meets its particular national interests and strategies.

To begin with, Prime Minister Blair appears to be too optimistic about the future of the U.S.. Harvard University professor Joseph Nye points out that the American policy of forming alliances, under the growing influence of neocons and right-wing religious activists, is beginning to incline toward an "alliance a la carte." Actually, U.S. allies are beginning to feel the danger of being "dragged into" U.S.-led wars. They feel that the U.S. is taking it for granted that they will "render services" and is "helping itself" to the fruit of their alliances.

Forming an alliance with the U.S., the strongest nation in the world, is like joining a club that gives members special privileges. Although the hurdle is high, it offers many benefits. An alliance with the U.S. gives allies a special footing that raises them up and makes them feel as if they are making great strides, as if on stilts. The higher the stilts, however, the farther the fall.