Everybody mad at Japan’s new prime minister needs to relax

A decade ago, when the Green Bay Packers’ season seemed on the verge of catastrophe, quarterback Aaron Rodgers told fans to “R-E-L-A-X. Relax. We’re going to be fine.” The Packers went on to finish with a winning record.

Despite the hard knocks and tough opponents, Japanese politics is not the NFL. But some are already warning that the new administration in Tokyo will be a catastrophe. As Rodgers told his anxious fans, everyone needs to relax.

Shigeru Ishiba was elected Japan’s 102nd prime minister on Oct. 1. His arrival has been extremely bumpy. One poll put his approval rating at 51 percent, giving him the second-lowest approval rating for a new administration since 2000. Similarly, the public does not give him high marks for his cabinet, with only 35 percent of the public approving of his personnel choices.

On top of the bad numbers have been some missteps regarding policy proposals that Ishiba made when he was campaigning. In particular, in an English-language essay on the Hudson Institute’s website, Ishiba had outlined several proposals that have garnered an overwhelmingly negative response in both Japan and the U.S., including calling for U.S. nuclear sharing with Japan; revising the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (which allows American military bases to operate in Japan) to create a more equal relationship; and creating an Asian version of NATO.

These ideas have been hammered by Japanese and foreign experts alike. Nuclear sharing has been criticized as one item on his security policy agenda that could “increase regional tensions and threaten national security.” And such a proposal would run counter to the formal Extended Deterrence Dialogue that Japan and the U.S. have conducted since 2010.

Calls to revise the Status of Forces Agreement have been criticized as outdated. Some have taken Ishiba to task for his approach to revision, with one editorial saying, “Ishiba’s political acumen is considered unskillful.” The idea of creating a NATO in the Indo-Pacific has been targeted the most, with a former speechwriter to the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe blasting the idea as “utterly unrealistic.”

I share many of these sentiments. If Ishiba prioritizes these issues on his agenda, they may not only be infeasible, but also cause friction with the U.S.

But an important point that knee-jerk criticism of Ishiba misses is that politicians in Japan, as in any democracy, make campaign promises that change once they are faced with the realities of governing. In other words, Ishiba the campaigner may very well be different from Ishiba the prime minister.

While campaigning, Ishiba relied on a small cadre of advisors to help him craft his policy proposals. Now, as premier, he is surrounded by the entire Japanese bureaucracy. These bureaucrats are well-versed in Japan’s laws, policy intricacies and relationships with other countries. Tasked with supporting the new leader, they are briefing Ishiba and his cabinet to remind them of Japan’s current strategic priorities and diplomatic landmines, and to guide campaign promises into more realistic policy proposals. And the results are already apparent.

At his first press conference on Oct. 2, Takeshi Iwaya, the new foreign minister, said that while the idea of an Asian NATO is valid “as an idea for the future,” Japan will “take time and consider it over the medium to long term.” Similarly, Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said, “In his instructions yesterday, the prime minister did not mention anything about an Asian version of NATO.” In other words, this is not a priority.

Similarly, regarding Status of Forces Agreement revision, the defense minister said that the government will study how to deal with it and that it should be considered carefully with other ministries in the future. The foreign minister echoed that, saying that “the government would like to carefully consider what approach and response would be most desirable.”

These comments are politics-speak for, “We are not going to push this anytime soon.” Ishiba himself said after his first phone call with President Biden that they did not speak about revising the Status of Forces Agreement.

Even with the proposal on nuclear sharing, Iwaya reminded journalists that the “government has always maintained the three non-nuclear principles as its policy, and there is no intention to revise this policy.” That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of nuclear sharing.

Yes, it is still too early to tell how this will all turn out. Maybe the Ishiba administration will flame out and be yet another footnote on the long list of short-lived Japanese premiers. His first test will be a general election this Sunday that many are focused on to see how well his party performs.

While Ishiba’s party will likely survive, many are expecting losses. Going forward, it is entirely plausible that Ishiba will not abandon his ideas but recognize the need for compromise. In fact, based on the guidance he is receiving from the bureaucracy, it is likely that he could repackage his proposals into a more politically plausible package. We simply do not know. Arguably the biggest sign yet of possible moderation is that Ishiba did not mention any of these ideas in his first policy speech to Japan’s parliament.

Ishiba is an intelligent and politically savvy figure. It would be premature to write his political obituary or sound the alarm bells over Japan’s foreign policy.

As Aaron Rodgers reminded Packers’ fans, we all need to just relax. Mistakes will happen. Policy proposals will change. Politics will sometimes get messy and cause policies to veer into unforeseen territory.

Ishiba will set Japan’s foreign policy agenda based on his political vision. But when faced with the realities of governing, and the deteriorating security environment within which Japan exists, more likely than not, Ishiba’s vision will not depart too much from the trajectory with which we are most familiar.

Jeffrey W. Hornung is the Japan lead for the RAND National Security Research Division and a senior political scientist at RAND. He is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.