Japan Rejects Criticism Its Response to Thai Disorder Was Weak-Kneed

TOKYO — Japanese officials stood tough Thursday against criticism that their response to recent military violence in Thailand was weak-kneed, defending their cautious policies as more effective in the long run than U.S.-style actions to quickly suspend aid.

“Cutting off aid may destabilize the country and harm the people it was meant to help,” a Foreign Ministry official said, adding that Japan needs to be extra careful with Thailand, since Tokyo provides 74% of Thailand’s total foreign economic aid. In 1990, aid totaled $418 million.

“Getting emotional or changing policies only because of public opinion may not lead to success in managing the process toward democracy,” the official added, in a polite swipe at what is widely considered here to be U.S. rashness and hypocrisy in reacting to human rights violations in some nations but not others.

Nevertheless, Tokyo has upgraded its reaction to recent Thai events from “concern” to “regret,” and some officials are betting that a shift in aid policy or other measures may come if the Thai situation continues to deteriorate.

Japan’s use of its burgeoning foreign aid has come under wide scrutiny since last year, when the government announced with much fanfare a new policy aimed at tying assistance to progress in human rights, democracy and anti-militarism. Announced in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, the policy was in part prompted by criticism that Japan had helped prop up Iraq with its foreign aid and was promoting no higher values than economic commercialism.

With the exception of Haiti, however, Japan has remained reluctant to use its new policy forcefully. While the United States quickly suspended aid to China, Myanmar, Peru and Thailand after regimes there quashed democracy movements, Japan trod a far more careful path. It suspended aid to China after the crackdown in Tian An Men Square but resumed it a year later.

After the regime in Myanmar, formerly Burma, killed hundreds of protesters in a brutal crackdown in 1988, Japan stopped new aid, reducing its total assistance by three-fourths the next year. But it has continued to fund six projects and still accounted for 80% of all Myanmar’s aid in 1989.

In some other countries, however--even after a military coup in Thailand last year and a crackdown in Peru earlier this year--Tokyo left its aid untouched.

“In Thailand, the Japanese have a perfect opportunity to link democracy with aid, to say they don’t believe in aid going to a country where the government is shooting people,” said Robert M. Orr, director of the Stanford University Japan Center in Kyoto. “But their commitment to human rights is 100% hollow. The government hasn’t even raised the issue.”

For their part, Japanese officials say their ultimate objective--to foster democracy--is the same as that of the United States, but that their approach differs. They believe that fostering stable economic development is the surest way to promote a lasting democracy, pointing to South Korea and Taiwan as examples, and the Japanese show more tolerance than does the United States for what they regard as temporary setbacks along the way.

Even human rights activists such as attorney Aikinori Hashimura blanch at the idea of abrupt punitive measures and instead counsel behind-the-scenes diplomacy, such as hints of cutoffs. “The Japanese government has to play a more active role in human rights diplomacy, but if you cut (economic aid) . . . it damages people’s lives,” he said.

Tokyo also argues that developing countries should not immediately be held to the same human rights standards as more economically advanced countries.

“When the country is very poor and people are dying, the No. 1 human right is to live and not starve to death,” said Seizaburo Sato, a Tokyo University political science professor. “For them, economic development is the most important.”

The argument hardly applies to Thailand, one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia. Indeed, officials acknowledge that the considerable investment by Japanese firms in Thailand--much of it connected to projects funded by government aid--was at least a “secondary” concern in charting a cautious course. Japan remains Thailand’s largest trading partner and investor, generally accounting for one-third of the nation’s total investment.

Sato said the government prefers to use its aid as a carrot rather than a stick, and Tokyo has rewarded, with increased aid, regimes moving toward democracy, such as Mongolia, El Salvador, Nepal, Bangladesh and Cambodia.

In addition, Japan, itself burdened with a checkered history of militarism and human rights violations in neighboring countries, still remains reluctant to “impose democracy” on other nations--as one official put it. And the Japanese say they are willing to show more patience for regimes trying to put their house in order, such as Peru under President Alberto Fujimori.

Fujimori’s recent announcement of a faster timetable than expected for returning to democratic rule is regarded by Tokyo as a vindication of its policies over those of the United States, which swiftly suspended all aid. “In the case of Peru, there was a difference of approach--and at least we think we are right,” a Japanese official said.

In a swipe at the United States, officials here also say they want to avoid inconsistency and double standards in applying their aid principles.

“America’s commitment to human rights is one of the best parts of American society, but the policy has not been consistent,” said Sato. “The U.S. is very quick to apply strong positions vis-a-vis countries in which the United States has no clear national interest, but it has supported many dictatorships in Third World countries to maintain the Western position against the Soviet Union.”