Alliances and DNA

My specialization is European politics and international relations, with a focus on NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). However, this naturally leads to an interest in alliances beyond NATO. As a Japanese citizen, the Japan-U.S. alliance is a given, but I also cannot take my eyes off other U.S. alliances.

In this context, I had the opportunity to visit Australia last November, despite a grueling lecture tour schedule of three cities in five days. It was a perfect opportunity to observe the U.S.-Australia alliance firsthand.

Drawing an analogy from U.S.-UK relations, I repeatedly proposed the hypothesis to my counterparts that "for Australia, the alliance with the U.S. 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 with which they—including government officials—criticized the Trump administration was impressive. There is a strong sense that "if the U.S. makes a wrong decision, it directly affects Australia, and there is no escape." For Australia, which has participated in almost all U.S. wars, the decisions of the U.S. President are directly linked to their own life and death. The degree of this realistic sensation differs from that in Japan.

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

I am not suggesting that international relations should be explained by race. Nevertheless, the observation that "it is impossible for the Japan-U.S. relationship to imitate the U.S.-UK relationship" remains persistent. There likely exists something that cannot be overcome by the introduction of state-of-the-art fighter jets or constitutional amendments. This cannot be ignored.

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

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 destination of the 21st century is a return to "DNA-based alliances," but that is precisely why this field has a human element and remains endlessly fascinating.