I truly regret that Japanese diplomacy has been based on a series of "yeses" instead of skillful manipulation of strong ace cards. Former prime minister Nakasone has done a substantial disservice to Japan in terms of his handling of relations with the US. These are among his most unfortunate mistakes. He boasted of the so-called "Ron-Yasu" relationship as if he had succeeded in bringing about a skillful policy toward the US. In reality, he was simply a lowly yes-man to Reagan.
It was actually I who introduced Mr. Nakasone to Mr. Reagan. I asked one of Mr. Reagan's assistants if he ever recalled a "no" from Nakasone to reagan. He immediately replied he did not know of any, and Mr. Nakasone was a "nice guy with a sardonic smile."
Former Prime Minister Nakasone was in a position to know that Japan's leading edge technology was superior to that of the US; so much so that Americans had become nervous concerning the magnitude of Japan's superiority in the area. Yet he still did not say "no." Was he taken advantage of? Did he have some weak spot as did the prime minister (Tanaka) at the time of the Lockheed scandal during the Nixon Administration? Otherwise, Japanese leaders who hold such high cards should be able to play them in dealing with American demands.
The FSX, the next generation of fighters, developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries during the Nakasone era, has become another source of controversy in the US as it relates to defense matters. Further development of the FSX appears to be quashed by the US. I am unaware of any deals made under the table, but there is considerable frustration in Japan over the matter.
Mitsubishi Heavy industries is a conglomerate with a wide variety of technology used in manufacturing advanced products. The chief engineer there is a contemporary of mine who developed the most advanced land-to-air missile. He is also the man responsible for the design of the next generation fighter and he believes that Japan should have its own capacity to provide such equipment, which of course astonishes Americans.
The FSX is a marvelous and formidable fighter. No existing fighter, including the F-15 and F-16 can match it in a dog fight. I recall when Secretary of Defense Weinberger became serious about quashing the FSX Japanese development plan, simply out of fear.
Unfortunately, Japan has not yet developed a powerful enough jet engine, although I advocated such development while I was a member of the Upper House. Japan still must purchase jet engines, which are mounted on the F-15 and F-16. If America gets really nasty, Japan could buy engines from france, which is quite anxious to export military equipment (at the same time that that country's president is advocating truces all over the world, I might add). If France is reluctant to sell what we need, I would not mind going to the Soviet Union, although the quality of the Russian engines is not particularly impressive.
New Mitsubishi-designed jet fighters equipped with Russian engines may only have a top speed of 95% of existing F-15 and -16 class fighters, so one might think them inferior. On the contrary: their combat capability is far superior in a dogfight situation. It can make a 380 degree turn [sic] with a third of the diameter needed by other top fighters. The F-15 and -16 require 5000 meters; the Mitsubishi fighter only requires 1600 meters. Just think of war as a game of tag. What is necessary is not maximum speed but great maneuverability. Mitsubishi's FSX fighter can get right on an enemy plance and send heat-seeking missiles with 100% accuracy. Incidentally, there are two types of air-to-air missiles, heat-seeking and radar-controlled. The radar-controlled type may even fail to hit a jumbo jet, while the heat-tracing type can fine-tune its direction to head for the enemy's source of heat.
The FSX was a surprise to Americans, as were to Zero fighters at the beginning of the Second World War. They never expected to see such an advanced fighter as the Zero, which virtually controlled the air at the beginning of the war. That such a formidable weapon as the FSX is in production today outside the US came as a shock to Americans. The Japanese FSX is equipped with four vertical fins, similar to a shark's fins. Each acts as a steering mechanism, like the steering wheel of a four wheel drive [four-wheel steering intended, presumably] automobile that can make a complete turn in a small area without moving back and forth. Such a marvelous idea probably is not the monopoly of Japan, but it was a Japanese manufacturer who developed the idea to reality, thanks to Japanese advanced high technology.
Russian fighters are also equipped using Japanese know-how, especially in the areas of ceramics and carbon fibers. Special paints on American reconaissance planes which assist in avoiding radar detection are also made in Japan.
Shocked by the high standards of the FSX, I guess that the US pressured Mr. Nakasone, probably citing his earlier commitment on technology. His submission to American pressure eventually caused the mothballing of the FSX, to be replaced by future products of a joint US-Japan development plan. In November 1988, the governments signed an agreement that set the course for the joint development of the FSX; an agreement which leaves many unsolved problems at the industry level.
One of the manufacturers involved, General Dynamics, was very anxious to assume the initiative on the project, dividing it up among others. It met with resistance from Mitsubishi, and General Dynamics came up with a plan that would separate the development of the left and right wing -- a very peculiar approach.
In short, America wants to steal Japanese know-how. They cannot manufacture the most technologically advanced fighters without advanced ceramic and carbon fiber technology from Japan. That is why America is applying so much pressure, attempting to force Japan to come to American terms. Some of Japan's industry representatives appear willing to deal with the Americans under the table, probably with the good intentions of smoothing US-Japan relations on the issue. I happen to disagree with such an approach. We just cannot give in on this issue. We must be persistent -- to the maximum degree. If America does not appreciate a rational division of labor on the project, we should discontinue the project and start all over from scratch.
The joint development idea is a legacy of the Reagan-Nakasone era. Both men are now out of power and we can retract the whole thing and tell the US that we have decided to develop our own project without its participation. It is our choice. We must bluff to counter American bluff, otherwise we will continue to be the loser.
I brought this subject up the other day to Mr. Nakasone. He responded, "Well, you had a pretty sharp interest in that issue at that time." I said that I was "probably the only one concerned about the issue at the time." Mr. Nakasone then insisted that he made the decision to compromise in order to maintain good US-Japan relations. He also admitted that America was then already very much afraid of further Japanese technical advances. Well, compromise is fine, but in reality this was not a compromise: it was a sell-out -- a simple sell-out of Japan's interests.
I don't regret it any less when we make the silly mistake of not saying "no" especially when we hold the strong cards. Such freebies are now taken for granted and America comes back with more bluff. On the record, USTR Yeutter stated that the "application of high pressure is the best way to manipulate Japan."
My position may draw some criticism in Japan, where it probably will be said that I am playing with dynamite in dealing with America in this fashion. It goes without saying that an equal partnership must be carried out without humiliating pressure or compromise as the result of such pressure. This is the reason I am advocating that Japan say "no." "No" is an important instrument in the bargaining process.