Japan's PM, Mr.Abe Shinzo, currently of Abenomics fame, has just gone through a meeting with Mr.Obama at the White House, their first ever meeting. This writer was amused, as well as unhappy, to see a couple of photos which appeared in today's morning paper. In both of them Abe is together with Obama, and in both of them Abe is smiling(whether Obama is also smiling or not does not matter here). It is the peculiar way he is smiling that has caught my attention. I have never seen him smiling this way while he is in Japan, his own country, and is facing his own people. It is difficult to characterize this smile. Naive? Yes, but here is more than that, and in that sense it is different from the proverbial 'Japanese smile'. Disarmed? Well, near. Without armour? Better, because he is not showing any tension on his face at all. Of course there are people who usually appear to be at home, showing little tension on the face or on the body. But this is different. This smile shows that it is as if Abe has unburdened all his worries. We say "Look for a big tree if you need a shelter", and Obama is that shelter here. Abe is not only politically and diplomatically but psychologically leaning on him. As if Obama is his boss.
I am not at all happy to write this way. But this is not something new, and that is the point. I have seen at least several former Japanese PMs smiling this way when they were with US Presidents. It shows the unfortunate tradition, built up over the decades between the two countries, more under the American initiative, that Japan has become a US satellite. The past PMs have tended to promise, or inform, the US Presidents of, things they have not seriously consulted their own people. They have tended to be more at ease with the Presidents than at their home offices. They must have felt more secure with the Presidents. Does it mean our PMs are not in the habit of conversing with their own people? And more keen on talking to the others? Yes, that is so. The honest photographs have again brought out these facts. It is also a warning to the Presidents, his Secretaries, and his Ambassadors that it can be dangerous to take what our PMs tell them, and only that, at their face value.
What are the results of the summit? The TPP issue was supposed to be the bone of the contention. But we are not sure if Abe has really contended against Obama. The joint statement says briefly that with some exceptions all the tariffs will be lifted for the member countries. Japan's business community is wholeheartedly in support of Japan's joining it. The question is if we would still have the core of our agriculture in tact, which has already been damaged so much that we are self-supporting in agricultural products only to the extent of 39%.
I am not at all happy to write this way. But this is not something new, and that is the point. I have seen at least several former Japanese PMs smiling this way when they were with US Presidents. It shows the unfortunate tradition, built up over the decades between the two countries, more under the American initiative, that Japan has become a US satellite. The past PMs have tended to promise, or inform, the US Presidents of, things they have not seriously consulted their own people. They have tended to be more at ease with the Presidents than at their home offices. They must have felt more secure with the Presidents. Does it mean our PMs are not in the habit of conversing with their own people? And more keen on talking to the others? Yes, that is so. The honest photographs have again brought out these facts. It is also a warning to the Presidents, his Secretaries, and his Ambassadors that it can be dangerous to take what our PMs tell them, and only that, at their face value.
What are the results of the summit? The TPP issue was supposed to be the bone of the contention. But we are not sure if Abe has really contended against Obama. The joint statement says briefly that with some exceptions all the tariffs will be lifted for the member countries. Japan's business community is wholeheartedly in support of Japan's joining it. The question is if we would still have the core of our agriculture in tact, which has already been damaged so much that we are self-supporting in agricultural products only to the extent of 39%.
No comments:
Post a Comment