This http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/us-japan-election-china-idUSBRE8BD06F20121214” target=”_blank”>Reuter article is a counterpoint to the post I made on the potential effects of Abe’s rise to the Prime Ministerial seat. The popular press and general consensus appears to be that Abe is a hardliner and ardent nationalist, who will be incredibly confrontation with Japan. The risks involved are the future of Sino-Japanese trade, which Japan relies heavily on.
This article, however, asserts that “LDP lawmakers knowledgeable on foreign policy” believe that, while tough, Abe and the LDP will also rule pragmatically. They say that their ultimate goal is to smooth relations and avoid a military encounter at all costs. Past records supports Abe’s ability to be pragmatic, for he visited China immediately the previous time he was prime minister, and he also avoids the famous Japanese war monument, Yasakuni Shrine. It is said that diplomats are already at work between the two nations resolving the dispute.
–In the meantime, warships shadow each other, jets are scrambled, and Abe is more reliant on his hardliner supporters than before.
So who knows how he’ll really rule.
I agree. I feel like a lot of the tough talk is really just rhetoric. Japan is completely unable to economically afford taking the stance Abe advocated on the campaign trail literally. In any negotiation, you always ask for more than you want and/or what you think you can get. You can never start talking from the starting point of what you want, you have to start high and come down so your real desires seem reasonable by comparison. Now this gets a bit more risky when you’re arguing over inhabited islands and both sides have very large armies at their disposal (or at least those of their friends), but the principle is the same.