Noda in Washington, Japan-USA Bilateral, Q3 2012

[Japan (X)]

Prime Minister Noda was happy to be meeting the American leadership. China's rise had been unsettling in Tokyo, deeply unsettling. Back n the 1980s, people talked about Japan becoming a new superpower. While Japan's economy was long only surpassed by America, superpower status was not conferred -- Japan's lost decade prevented much meaningful advancement of Japan's strategic influence. Today, it was China who was the rising Asian power. With Washington's pivot to the Far East, and murmurings of "Air-Sea Battle," Japan was in a profoundly uncomfortable situation. Her strategic influence was minimal. Her only ally was America: Japanese domestic politics prevented much more, and even when there was possibility of another coming close to her heart, Korean domestic politics intervened. Japan had limited ability to give, and increasingly limited ability to fend for itself.

Japan's standing was in an uncomfortable position not unlike West Germany in the Cold War. Almost guaranteed to be negatively affected by any potential conflict. Japan was in many ways in still worse shape, and so while Noda and his nation had power, they could scarcely exercise it on the world stage, let alone exercise it effectively.

Noda took in Obama in his eyes. There was some debate as to whether an Obama reelection would suit Japan or not. Even if a Republican was more committed to assuring East Asian security with American might, recklessness and domineering behaviors of administrations past might almost be worse than the Chinese yoke.

"President Obama, it is a pleasure to be here in Washington today."

[United States (Kartozeichner)]

"I greatly thank you, sir, for allowing my nation to host you here. I would like to extend to you all graces: if you need anything, simply request it of an orderly, here. Mr. Watts is an excellent aide, and his coffee is exquisite. Now, sir, I am very eager and excited to be discussing matters with, perhaps, our strongest ally in the Pacific. Now, if you would please open to me precisely what you wished to discuss here."

[Japan (X)]

"Well, the first quick matters I intend to get to are defence related. The first is related to training. Japan is a densely populated country, as I'm sure you know. Japan is also an open, democratic, society, where citizens can easily find platform for their criticisms of government activities. Regrettably, that means that military training is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. The loud noise and damage caused by military training is considered somewhat unacceptable. Thus, we want to lease training grounds on the American west coast, in rural expanses which simulate Japanese terrain. Here we would have some military equipment, and would rotate through military personnel for training exercises, sometimes with American troops. This would also apply to our fighter jets. This will allow our forces to be at far higher levels of readiness and interoperability with their American counterparts without sacrificing the well-being of our citizenry. I believe Germany already has a similar arrangement, for fighter pilot training.

The second part of this is somewhat more sensitive. Japan will be commissioning a new class of helicopter destroyers with flat-tops, the first entering the service in 2015. The Ministry of Defence tells me that a further class of ships may be still larger and with greater aviation complement. While we do not seek to operate offensive strike carriers, the JMSDF is interested in larger helicopter destroyers, which might also have a role as defensive escort carriers. America has the world's greatest reservoir of aircraft-carrier knowledge. We would like to begin training the Maritime and Air Self Defence Forces, initially slowly and in small numbers, trickling to greater and greater levels, on one of your ships, perhaps the USS Enterprise, due to her age.

If this is acceptable to you, we would like to have both these policy prongs kept under one training agreement, in order to avoid political provocations, and to maintain secrecy.

The second matter is research and development. We in Japan are interested in two American projects which were canceled and never saw service. We would appreciate that American companies related to the original programs be permitted to quietly assist our engineers in studying the projects and potentially incorporating lessons learned into new projects -- which we assure you, would be open to American procurement if the US later takes an interest in the fruits. The programs we are interested in are, naturally, the Northrop YF-23, in order to assist with our ATD-X and similar fighter jet development programs; and, more strangely, the SM-5 Mountain Top. The SM-5 was designed to give over-the-horizon targeting capability for cruise-missile defence, the Ministry of Defence tells me that it might be possible to use some of the datalink and related technologies to enable asymmetric naval craft to extend their reconnaissance and targeting capabilities."

[United States (Kartozeichner)]

"I completely understand your predicament. Obviously further economic growth would create more crowding, and weapons and military training would certainly bring greater and greater unpleasant noise, pollution, et cetera, to your nation. Our extremely close defensive ties make such cooperation easily doable. I am very much open to the creation of joint aerial-ground training grounds which could be used by both of our nations' armed forces, to make better our interoperability and relations as a whole. I am also willing to offer your nation the ability to send units for joint training at Fort Irwin, as a means of training prior to the creation of these new facilities.

I further understand your wish to gain more knowledge in aircraft carrier operations. However, I feel that doing training on an aircraft carrier could possibly be interpreted as a move towards an offensive aircraft carrier unit. Obviously this is not in your future planning, however, we must not put on any false ideas.

Now, sir, the U.S.S. Enterprise will be decommissioned next year. However, I would be fully supportive of keeping the unit in commission solely as a helicopter training unit, as long as said unit would be jointly funded by both of our governments. In order to dispel any idea of Japanese ownership or operation of an aircraft carrier, the unit could be based in American facilities in San Diego, and always sailed under an American flag and an American captain--yet the majority of onboard personnel and helicopter units would all be training units of the Japanese Navy and Air Force, with a vanguard of Americans to properly train the Japanese sailors and Air Force Personnel, and to maintain essential systems.

It is somewhat of a complicated arrangement, but I believe that it may be what you were asking for, no? I am also quite fine with putting all of the training arrangements under a single treaty.

I believe that my government is willing to allow Northrop Grumman to do work with Japanese firms to help improve the ATD-X technology demonstrator and subsequent jet fighter. Oh--and I must say--American assistance in these programs would also require the same technology to be part-owned by the United States. Would this conflict with your ban on exporting weaponry?

The SM-5 program has been permanently ended in favor of the far cheaper SM-6. However, my nation would also be open to permitting Raytheon to work with your nation on advancement in these reconnaissance and targeting capabilities. Could you please elaborate on exactly what you want these technologies for? Asymmetric naval craft, you said?"

[Japan (X)]

Noda flinched when the American used the terms "air force" and "navy." While his counterpart was within the realm of fact, the idea was still strangely unsettling.

"Excellent. With regards to the USS Enterprise, unless the United States can provide significant amounts of crewing, we would prefer to use a newer ship. Japan is extremely stretched on the personnel front -- we are capital rich but manpower poor. As it is, many of our ships do not have full crews under normal conditions. One of the areas we are interested in regarding carrier training is the F-35B. While I am not here to discuss further F-35 purchases, I may as well make it known now that Japan is considering further investment in the F-35 program. The reason, is fairly simple. China's anti-ship weapons out-range even our AEGIS destroyers with Standard Missiles, thus, the most effective way of extending our air-defence umbrella further is with fixed wing aircraft.

Sometimes complicated is what makes everyone's lives simpler, yes?

The Japanese ban on exporting weaponry has never applied to joint developments with the United States, a mark of our trust and bond. While We are comfortable with part American ownership, to comply with Japanese law we must be able to veto any American transfer of said technology elsewhere, essentially the same arrangement agreed to when Japan and the United States developed the SM-3 together. As a forewarning, I must admit to you that Japan is also interested in cooperating with other American allies in the program. We have sent feelers to Israel, specifically. Naturally, American right to veto further involvement would be granted in return.

While I do not entirely understand the specifics of why the engineers at the TRDI want the 'Mountain Top,' I was given a briefing on the subject. The SM-5 was meant to guide other missiles. As such, the datalink is extremely capable. The cheaper SM-6 solution was to take an old standard missile and drop an AMRAAM seeker head on it. However, by re-appropriating the datalink we can make small craft capable of acting as sensor or weapons platforms without putting bulky, expensive sensors on them."

[United States (Kartozeichner)]

"The Enterprise could take a group as small as, say, 500 personnel, though my government would far prefer that Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force personnel take the majority on the unit, however, an arrangement where the USN maintains the majority of personnel and simply hosts some Japanese personnel is workable. I would of course counsel your naval forces to increase its personnel size as possible to allow more trainees on board, but I will not attempt to dictate matters to you.

Using the F-35B in this manner is logical. While I also do not wish to discuss the F-35, which anti-ship missile systems will you be procuring for the F-35 aircraft? I believe my nation is going to be operating the new Joint Strike Missile, and 'anti-missile missile' operations could be conducting with anti-aircraft missiles such as the AIM-120D, or the Japanese AAM-4--but I am simply curious.

I would agree.

That would be acceptable since it would indeed be a joint project, however, my nation is not able to agree to other American allies to join in the project. I cannot sponsor a 5th-generation fighter project which would compete with the American F-35 project. I believe I can only guarantee American assistance if the project remain between Japan and the United States, to protect my nations' business.

I understand your meaning, and the idea has merit. I would be open to a technology transfer as long as the project would be under the same lines as the previously discussed fighter aircraft project."

[Japan (X)]

"We can try as best we can, existing military reforms should cut costs quite a bit to allow us to help man the ship. Over time, our contribution would be able to grow, at the very least.

In terms of armament, in the mid-term, Japan's defence industry will provide the necessary wares. In the short term, we will train and operate an inventory of American weapons under some areas, including medium range air-to-air types, because our existing weapons are designed for external use on our F-4/F-15/F-2 fleet, and are often a little bit beyond the size of internal weapons bays on 5th generation fighters. Until our industry can modify those indigenous systems which are presently of inappropriate size, we will use American weapons. In the specific case of anti-ship missiles, we intend to use the domestic ASM-3, which my engineers ensure me is quite capable, one of the few, perhaps only weapons in its class outside of Russia and China.

We can concede agreement on both technology points.

Now, onto those matters which truly define nations. Political economy and trade." Noda paused. "Political economy" was a deliberately chosen term. In Japan, economics was understood as having an intimate relationship with Americans which was a little alien to Americans and their notions of laissez-faire. Noda's philosophical thought was brought to a halt as he continued:

"We in Japan are going to engage in a dramatic restructuring of agriculture. If not now, then in the next federal budget. If not then, then in 2014. It simply has to happen. The United States built our national food policy after World War II, and for that we are grateful. In Japan, our people eat a good meal. Every day. This is something which we take for granted here, but sadly this is a struggle for so many nations. While we are concerned with world hunger, that 'miss America' topic of discussion is for another day." At the words "Miss America," Noda paused again. He wondered absent mindedly to himself whatever happened to that hospitable White House Staffer Monica Lewinski? He avoided gossip, it never interested him, really. Lewinski was hardly a "Miss America" anyways. He redirected his cognition to the task at hand:

"Thus, I am here today to request America help us change our national food policy again. My government seeks to liberalize our markets, removing tariffs on food imports. While this is not immediately likely to benefit the American farmer -- imports from Australia are far more likely and in keeping with existing policy, American expertise in running large, efficient, corporate farms is highly desired by my government. For those companies your government can find willing to help us re-structure, our agriculture industry will compensate both in the salary of those who aid us, and in exchange for a small stake, depending on the scale of assistance, of course.

Naturally, we require these experts and businessmen to be sensitive to Japan's unique culture and the political climate and associated sensitivity -- something Western political discourse calls 'Machiavellianism.' Changes in Japan will by necessity be far more complex than a mere modification of method. Thus, we do require American experts be both thoroughly briefed (which we will provide) on the situation, and be willing to comply with Japanese guidance on matters not related to the purely 'nuts and bolts' areas. While we want Americans to help us farm, it is not the business of Americans to dictate to Japanese businesses politics, as I'm sure you'll understand.

As a natural extension of this policy, we are also interested in a free trade agreement with all the NAFTA members. In effect, we want Japan, the USA, Canada, and Mexico to be one giant, common market. While this would not be immediate, we do want it. For us, it allows our industry to export goods to North America, for North America, it allows your companies to compete, particularly in the stagnant sectors of Japan's economy. While some protectionists in America will inevitably oppose you on this, I urge you to assent to such an agreement in principle. As of right now, Japanese car companies build cars in America and then sell them on the Japanese market, creating labour jobs in America's industrial heartland in cooperation with our biggest companies.

Japan isn't an economic predator, but it is a partner. In light of both our somewhat sluggish economies, an amplification of trade relations between our nations could be a brilliant tonic, as you Americans say: 'just what the doctor ordered.' Furthermore, the expansion of economic activity should ease investor fears about our large public debts and ease necessary fiscal policies, a luxury some countries in Europe simply have not had."

[United States (Kartozeichner)]

"I can easily say that if Japanese firms wished to hire out guides and consultants to help your agricultural industry flourish, that they could do so. I am also very much certain that they would be more than willing to learn and master Japanese business and cultural practice in order to easily integrate into their assignments in Japan. They simply must be hired out. My government can assign agents to finding proper consulting firms which can help your nation.

I am tentatively willing to agree to a Free Trade Agreement with your nation. I ask, has your stance changed on an agreement such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership?"

[Japan (X)]

"Excellent.

Japan is interested in the TPP, but we are still cautious. Japan's economy is one of our proudest achievements, and we do not want to gamble with such a national treasure. As such, we want to continue the slow integration of our nation into bilateral free trade agreements.

The TPP would perhaps be on the table in the future.

That is effectively the Japanese agenda covered. If you have anything you want to broach for the United States, I'm all ears."

[United States (Kartozeichner)]

"We shall have to have a conference between your nation and the NAFTA nations to come to a conclusion on free trade. Of course it would be a major step, so all nations must come together in discussion. I am willing to schedule this meeting now, if you are willing as well."

[Japan (X)]

One of Noda's advisors whispered in his ear. News from the domestic front. Bad news.

"If I may, I would like to respectfully decline further talks, including free trade at this time. Elections are being scheduled. I'm sure my successor"-- Noda winced, and continued, "will be able to cement those areas of our relationship which have been cut short today. Thank you for your time."

[OOC: I'm going to have to handle Japan's elections and perhaps some policy changes, so this is my IC cop out. I'd gladly meet with you again and talk further schemes in the next IG year or so, if that's OK. Sorry to put up a roadblock at the last moment."]