Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visit to Australia was but a brief one. The first for a Japanese Prime Minister for five years. The visit was long enough, though, to highlight the significant differences between the two countries. The differences were expressed with usual diplomatic niceties and they exist in the context of an underlying strength of a relationship built on the base of high-volume trade. But the differences underscore just how pragmatic that relationship is and how little give there is in it.
We export huge amounts of coal and iron ore to Japan because Japan needs and wants them. We import large amounts of Japanese elaborately manufactured items because Australians need and want them.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard told a state lunch than the relationship between Australia and Japan was the “”most broadly based Australia enjoys in the region” and that the economic relationship was “”wide and deep”. It was only so much diplomatic twaddle. The relationship is not especially broad; it is mainly economic rather than cultural. And the economic relationship is high volume — Japan is Australia’s biggest customer for exports and Australia is Japan’s second highest source of imports – but it is narrow.
The attempts to change that during this visit came to precious little. Japan said No to Australia on a Free Trade agreement and Australia said No to Japanese urgings for Australia to join the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Mr Howard expressed again his enthusiasm for Japanese-Australian-US security co-operation. Mr Koizumi said no.
The language was polite.
The joint statement talked about a “”framework for discussions and negotiations about future and closer economic and trade relationships”. It meant that Mr Koizumi can easily return to Japan and reassure Japanese farmers that they will not be swamped with cheaper produce from more efficient Australian farmers. That is important to Mr Koizumi who needs the support of thousands of small-plot farmers to stay in power.
Mr Koizumi rebuff on security was couched as: “”In the area of military co-operation I believe Japan can play a role that is different from the roles that other countries would play.” Mr Koizumi is fearful of unnecessarily upsetting the Chinese. Mr Howard, on the other hand, is more interested in pleasing the United States than in worrying about annoying China. Mr Howard has been happy to fall in with US view that China needs to be contained. That view pressed shortly after President George Bush came to power for domestic reasons, has now, fortunately, been moved to the back seat following September 11.
The Kyoto agreement was not mentioned in the joint statement. Mr Koizumi’s expression of hope that Australia would join was not out of diplomatic order because technically Australia is undecided rather than opposed. Australia will not join unless the US and developing countries also join.
Mr Koizumi could hardly break out. He is constrained by history and the Japanese political system in which industry chiefs and bureaucracy heads have more power than the Prime Minister. And Mr Howard is constrained by his desire to please the US.
On the brighter side of the visit, Japan committed funds for East Timor, saw the need for a wider ASEAN (presumably post Mahathir) and added a little warmth with the Acting Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin speaking Japanese and Mr Koizumi acknowledging that Australia looked after Japanese POWs and war dead very well. But the adding a little warmth was – like the progress in trade, security and Kyoto issues — the first step of a journey. There are many steps to go.