Alliances and DNA

2020/03/23

I specialize in European politics and international relations, and have primarily researched NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). However, this naturally leads to an interest in alliances other than NATO. As a Japanese person, the Japan-US alliance is a given, but I also cannot take my eyes off the United States' other alliances.

In this context, last November, I had the opportunity to visit Australia, although it was a grueling lecture tour of three cities in five days. It was a perfect opportunity to see the US-Australia alliance up close.

Drawing an analogy with US-UK relations, I repeatedly proposed the hypothesis to my counterparts that "for Australia, the alliance with the US is part of its DNA," and not a single person denied it. From our discussions, two points are particularly noteworthy, including the differences with Japan.

First, the seriousness of their criticism of the Trump administration, including among government officials, was impressive. There is a strong sense that "if the US makes a wrong decision, it will directly affect Australia, and there is no escape." For Australia, which has participated in almost all of America's wars, the US president's decisions are directly linked to their own life and death. The degree of this sense of reality differs from that of Japan.

Second, there is a lively debate in Australia regarding the ultimate choice in foreign relations: whether to stick with the US or defect to China. However, in reality, in light of history, culture, and language, the possibility of parting ways with the US is nearly zero. Even if they take different positions from the US on individual policies, when the fate of the nation is at stake, their identity as Anglo-Saxons is likely to play a major role.

This is not to say that international relations should be explained by race. Nevertheless, the point that "it is impossible for the Japan-US relationship to imitate the US-UK relationship" remains persistent. There seems to be something that cannot be overcome even by the introduction of state-of-the-art fighter jets or constitutional reform. This cannot be ignored.

Personally, I take the realist position that alliances are based on cold calculations of national interest. However, looking at the US-Australia alliance as described above, the validity of constructivism, which emphasizes ideas and identity, cannot be denied.

Diplomacy like that of 18th or 19th-century Europe, where alliances were flexibly rearranged according to changes in national interest, is difficult in today's world. It would be ironic if the culmination of the 21st century were a return to alliances based on DNA, but that is precisely why this field has a human element and remains endlessly fascinating.