AIVLAE OR HOW TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

That Japan's international relations would become more complex as its involvement in foreign markets deepened was to me a foregone conclusion. What I had not expected was the wary guile in the cloak of (often pretended) vulnerability the Japanese continued to employ in their dealings with the West. Here was a nation that had just overtaken Germany as the second largest economy in the world, and it was still mired in the bog of post-war dependency, claiming all mannerof special protection and exemptions from the rules of play between advanced nations.

In one of my Japanese friends’ words, Japan was indulging shamelessly in amae— taking advantage of the understanding and tolerance of others. Politically amoewas a convenient substitute for non-action, that is, for not moving Japan's economy to a more mature stage where it could face foreign competition on equal terms and in the process earn the ngjat to help set multilateral economic policy. As long as Western powers ‘understood’ Japan's special position and could be persuaded not to force it to grow up, it was all right — was not it? — to maintain the status quo.

Needless to say, maintaining the status quo was in the interest of the LDP ruling coalition (with their crucial rural constituency), big business and the bureaucracy, all of whom had huge stakes in postponing fundamental change. The areas in need of modernisation were many: dismantling the onerous distribution system, liberalising imports and foreign investment, introducing anti-pollution and other pro-environment laws, improving social welfare and health benefits, lowering the cost of housing and requiring greater financial transparency from the corporate sector were among the most pressing ones.

The government could no longer claim that it could not ‘afford’ change or that Japan was a ‘special case’. Its failure to free up the economy and introduce wealth-spreading measures could only be ascribed to overriding vested interests. In spite of growing protests from the unions, consumer organisations, student groups and environmentalists, little was done to change the country's direction.