Kiichi Miyazawa : Japan’s Next Prime Minister Sees His Country as a ‘Team Player’

Kiichi Miyazawa, 72, has emerged as the man virtually certain to replace Toshiki Kaifu as prime minister following party elections later this month.

A small man, unremarkable but for large, intense eyes that peer out of his benign face, Miyazawa is one of the last of the powerful bureaucrats-turned-politicians who played a key role in guiding Japan’s postwar economic miracle.

After graduating from the elite Imperial University of Tokyo’s Department of Law in 1941, Miyazawa worked in the Ministry of Finance for 12 years before taking the highly unusual step of leaving that powerful position, at age 33, to take a seat in Japan’s upper house of Parliament. He was elected to the lower house in 1967, and has since served as minister of international trade and industry, as foreign minister, as deputy prime minister and, most recently, as finance minister, from 1986 to 1988. He was then slated to become prime minister, but was implicated in the Recruit bribery scandal and forced to resign, along with most other leading party members.

Memories of Miyazawa’s involvement in the scandal, particularly after repeated denials of having played a role, continue to make him unpopular with the public at large. Japan’s powerful business leaders and bureaucrats, however, have consistently voted him their first choice for his intelligence and his grasp of international affairs.

Miyazawa’s greatest weakness in the close-knit world of Japanese politics is standoffishness--widely interpreted as arrogance. Colleagues see Miyazawa as something of a showoff. They derided him once for reading an English book in public--that was seen as a vain display of his language abilities. Yet he recently held his own in a debate on world affairs with Henry A. Kissinger. He spoke in English while the audience listened to a translation through earphones.

Miyazawa is viewed by many as pro-American, but others say he is, at best, ambivalent. “He understands America but would be independent of America,” says Masaya Itoh, a well-respected commentator. When Miyazawa’s daughter married an American diplomat in Japan about 10 years ago, Miyazawa didn’t attend the ceremony and suggested their different cultural backgrounds would make the union difficult.

Miyazawa asked to speak in Japanese during a recent conversation, saying he hadn’t used his English all day and it was rusty. After a question, he would often pause to think, crossing his arms, tapping his shiny black shoes and staring off into the corner of his cluttered office.

Question: You have watched Japan go through many changes. Is Japan now at a turning point?

Answer: Yes, for the first time we are beginning to feel we have a global responsibility. Japan is trying its best in the Structural Impediments Talks, the Gulf talks.

Q: Should Japan take more leadership.

A: The question of leadership is a problem. It is better to look at Japan as a contributor. Being a leader, taking initiative and doing something--that kind of thing is not part of this country’s culture. We are more the kind of country where everybody gets together and says let’s move in this direction. Collective leadership is comfortable to Japan. As a country, we are a team player. . . .

Q: Japan is putting out a growing share of the world’s foreign aid, as in the Gulf War. Is Japan being consulted enough?

A: The Gulf War situation was a new experience in our some 40-year postwar history. Our decision-making was slow and often ambiguous. We are reflecting on these things. Nevertheless, while considering the constraints of our constitution, we put out money and sent mine sweepers. We must do what we can; what we can’t do can’t be helped. It has been about a year now, and we have come to realize this.

It was very helpful to us that the United Nations came out in front on this issue. If it was just America, it would have been very difficult for Japan to respond. Bush was very smart to have the U.N. stand out in front. That made it possible for Japan to make its contribution. We had that experience, and in the future we will know what we can do and what we can’t do more quickly.

At the London summit, I think Japan’s view was respected because of its Gulf contribution. They realize that, from now on, if there is need for money somewhere, Japan will be a source. In that sense, we are being respected. There is nothing wrong with that.

(U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker says burden-sharing means we should carry some of the weight America has carried up until now--that is his concept. But our view is that everybody has a global responsibility and, within that situation, each should do what they can do.

Q: But doesn’t that mean it will always be America putting out the military force and Japan putting out the money? Won’t that invite criticism?

A: We can’t have a Japanese military because of our constitution. You can’t change that. You have to think about (burden) sharing with that in mind.

Q: You have said you wouldn’t mind contributing to a U.N. force.

A: Well, if the U.N. has its own standing force, then they would be international civil servants. There is nothing wrong with Japanese joining such a force. It would not be Japan’s war, it would not be Japan’s military strength. That is desirable, and Japan could contribute in such a situation. At first, it may be largely a symbolic force.

Q: America is enmeshed in many problems of its own. What is your advice?

A: What I most want to say to America is your country is an admirable country, with admirable values, and a strong economy and military. You are the finest country, so you should have confidence. . . . I just can’t see America as a weak economy. When a company (like Chrysler) is in the red and its president triples his bonus--in any country, a company like that will have problems. That isn’t America’s fault; it is the fault of that individual company. There is a big debate in America about its educational system and how to become competitive--that is the great thing about America. You can’t fail.

Q: This was a summer of scandals in Japan. What is the reason?

A: I have long worried about “money games.” In America, you had Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky. . . . A dangerous aspect to the money game is the frustration of manufacturers. To have sound economic development, you have to produce things with your sweat. . . . Instead, people with just an MBA have been making more money than Paul Volcker. It couldn’t last. The gold plating has just rubbed off. It isn’t just Japan. You had it in Wall Street and now BCCI.

Q: Is a more independent institution to regulate financial services necessary?

A: The Ministry of Finance is in the position of fostering the financial-services industry and . . . also of penalizing the industry. Having the two functions performed by the same institution is like putting the prosecutor and the lawyer in the same role. . . . The (Japanese) stock market must develop into a system that is better understood internationally. . . . The economy moves globally and Japan is a “key station” in that economy, so wherever possible, you have to adjust to international standards. This (scandal) presents a good opportunity to do that. With the manufacturing and service sector, you are dealing with visible things. Money is invisible and, to that extent, you need some independent authority capable of scrutinizing (its movement).

Q: On Japan’s international role, Europe is moving toward a true common market in 1992, while America is working on a North American free market. You have spoken of Asia as the “third pillar” of the world economy. Can you explain?

A: Recently, I traveled to several Asian countries. It is really amazing the incredible economic growth that is taking place; the region is roaring. I believe that by 2010, Japan . . . (and) the 10 (East Asian) countries will surpass North America in GNP (gross national product). By 2015, we will surpass EC and EFTA (European Free Trade Assn.). We (in East Asia) will grow at a 5% rate, North America at 2.5% and EC and EFTA at 3%. . . . The essential thing at that point is to make sure this region doesn’t become a fortress. . . . Even if we try to create a fortress--(we) once tried that and it was a mistake--there aren’t that many common elements or bonds (to hold the region together). . . . I don’t worry too much about North America (becoming protectionist), because America is the core country. But the EC, since it will be led by France for a while, is likely to remain inward-looking for some time. Since Germany has its problems integrating East Germany, it is more convenient for them to have France leading the group.

Q: Japan seems to feel it has a special role in Asia.

A: Our role is to nurture the region. For one thing, we have to help develop a regional infrastructure with communications . . . and transportation ties. . . . And then there’s training. . . . Japan should use its (foreign-aid budget) to set up technical training programs in each country. The main obstacle to (creating a regional economy) is the question of currency and finance. . . . I believe the yen will become a more commonly used currency (in the region), but whether that is good or bad, I think it is better to let things develop naturally.

Q: What about Japan’s role in China since the Tien An Men Square massacre?

A: Looking at the debate in America (on China), my opinion is closer to President Bush’s. Americans who oppose (trade) are too puritan, too idealistic. For a people with a history of just 200 years to tell a people with a 3,000-year history what to do--the concept of time is different. . . . Whenever you go to China, you feel this. They talk of 100 years or 200 years as if it were nothing, while America’s entire history fits into that span.

. . . . So when people keep talking about human rights--well, in China there weren’t any human rights until about 30 years ago. Little by little, they are trying to . . . change. To remove (China’s) most- favored-nation status because they didn’t (improve human rights) in two years, to penalize them (isn’t right). You have to think of the longer term.

Q: Is America asking too much of Japan on trade?

A: . . . . A lot of Japanese may feel (U.S. demands) interfere with Japan’s structure and society. . . . We have both tried our best (at shrinking the trade imbalance). Japan’s trade surplus was 4% (of GNP) and now is down to 1%. . . . The problem is that Japan’s trade surplus is likely to increase again, and the trade balance with America is likely to get worse. . . . Since America’s (overall) trade deficit is shrinking, unless the relationship with Japan improves, Japan will get a larger share of the blame.

. . . . The cause (of the trade imbalance) is that while Japanese exports to America include consumer products, exports are largely made up of goods required by American factories. (U.S. dependence) has gotten so that a major portion of America’s production--even a portion of military production--depends on these Japanese imports. In electronics, in robots, in workstations, in consumer products, if you stop (Japanese imports), America’s economy would grind to a halt. . . . America must decide whether it wants to start making those (essential) components in America or to keep buying them from Japan.

Q: This year marks the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. What are your memories of that war? Do you believe Japan has done enough to apologize for its actions?

A: I first went to America in 1939, as a student. U.S.-Japan relations were getting worse and worse; I expected Americans to say it is unforgivable that Japan invaded China. I wondered how I should respond, and talked with my friends about it on the ship on the way over. But I found American students would criticize their own country. Sometimes they would say, “Japan is right.” They really spoke freely. So I thought: This is what democracy is. . . . If we ever went to war with this country, we would lose.

I was just 19, but I was very impressed. I was a student at Tokyo University and we were going to USC campus for a debate. Japan’s leaders thought that, because America is in such disarray, they could beat America. That was a mistake.

Individual thinking is often much better than collective thinking. We are a consensus society so we have our weaknesses. Not that we are slow to move. When we move, we all move in one direction.

Q: But group thinking has been a strength for Japan over the past 30 years.

A: Well, we are meeting some years after Pearl Harbor. Once is enough for this sort of thing. We don’t want to be dragged into the same mistake again.