class="bi x0 y0 w0 h1"
Clinton and Japan
This page intentionally left blank
Clinton and Japan
The Impact of Revisionism
on US Trade Policy
Robert M. Uriu
University of California, Irvine
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaa m Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
q Robert M. Uriu 2009
The moral rights of the author has been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2009
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

may be hard to imagine a time when such frictions were the source of so
much anger and resentment.
However, the passage of time cannot erase the intensity of the anger and
resentment that characterized the relationship just a decade ago, espe-
cially for those who were involved in those events. During the 1980s and
1990s there was an incredible amount of tension in the relationship, with
talk of a growing Japanese economic threat, views that Japan was Amer-
ica’s new international rival, concerns over a ‘Japanese invasion,’ and the
like. In Japan, a growing sense of resentment over American trade com-
plaints and a rising dislike of Americans led many to seek to place the
blame on American incompetence or dishonesty. Some scholars who
studied Japan and who happened to agree with the Japanese side of the
story were dismissed as ‘Japanapologists’ or ‘agents of influence.’ Conversely,
critics of Japan—notably the so-called ‘revisionists’ who are at the core of
this book—were at times accused of hating the Japanese or, worse, being
motivated by racism. (Both sets of charges, I firmly believe, were without
merit—that is, their differences were mostly academically and intellec-
tually honest ones.) In this context, I vividly recall one senior scholar
warning me that doing a book on the revisionists was too risky for an
(then) untenured professor. I decided to ignore this advice. In any case,
today, for better or for worse, the topic is no longer as controversial as it
once was (better, perhaps, for US–Japan relations, but probably worse
regarding interest in the topic).
vii
I got the idea for my first book when one of my professors did not have a
satisfactory answer to one of my questions. The idea for this book came
when I could not come up with an adequate answer to one of my own
student’s questions. That question came during a discussion of the differ-
ent views of the Japanese economy, pitting traditionalists who conceived
of the market there as essentially capitalist in nature and Japan as an

So, too, with those involved in US–Japan trade relations. In speaking
with officials from both governments, I often had the feeling that I was in
the middle of my own version of the movie, with each person talking
about the same events, but voicing diametrically opposite interpretations.
viii
Preface
It struck me that this enormous gap in assumptions was real and often not
reconcilable. And this gap definitely affected how policies were con-
structed and implemented, and how the two countries conducted their
negotiations.
This impression became even more vivid during 1996–7, when I served
as a Director of Asian Affairs in the National Security Council (NSC).
Although I do not (and cannot) discuss the policy issues I dealt with
during my service in the Clinton White House, that opportunity gave
me an insider’s view of how Clinton administration officials made policy.
I was also able to meet many of the officials who made Clinton’s Japan
trade policy and had the privilege of working directly with some of them.
Most importantly, I was able to put myself in their shoes, and thus I think
am better able to understand how American officials conceived of the
issues. I have tried to impart some of the character and color of how
decisions were being made in the Clinton White House.
One thing that I discovered during my time in the Clinton White House
was how competent and knowledgeable about Japan most top US govern-
ment officials were, and how much direct experience with Japan actually
existed in government circles. It is common to hear professors of all
orientations criticize policies that they disagree with by arguing that US
policy makers ‘don’t understand Japan,’ lack experience, or are simply
incompetent. What I found was that officials on all sides of the debate in
fact did understand Japan—it was just that each side understood Japan
differently.

was an International Affairs Fellowship from the Council on Foreign
Relations, which allowed me the opportunity to enter the NSC. The sec-
ond was a Fulbright Fellowship for research in Japan, where I conducted
the interviews for the second half of the book. I also received smaller
grants from the Social Science Research Council and from my current
institution, the University of California, Irvine.
In the course of researching and writing this book—a process that took
far too long a time, I realize—I have accumulated many intellectual and
personal debts. All or parts of the manuscript have been read by Hugh
Patrick, Gerry Curtis, Ellis Krauss, T. J. Pempel, and other unnamed readers
from Oxford University Press. I have received comments from these
scholars and many others, including Merit Janow, S. Linn Williams,
Kenji Hayao, Patti MacLachlan, Taka Suzuki, Jennifer Holt Dwyer, Michael
Green, Kojo Yoshiko, Hiwatari Nobuhiro, Saori Katada, John Odell,
Richard Katz, and I am sure others who I failed to record. I also thank
my family—my wife Noriho and my sons Masato and Kazuto—for being so
patient with me. It has become my standard New Year’s resolution over the
past few years to ‘finish the book,’ so now I can finally think of a new
resolution.
I dedicate this book to three individuals who have had the biggest
impact on my development. First is Hugh Patrick, my main mentor
during the time I spent as a student and assistant professor at Columbia
University. For my first book and for this one Hugh provided me with
1
Despite these disclaimers, the NSC legal staff has objected to some of the material in this
book, notably the discussion of the deliberations inside the Clinton White House, on the
grounds that my status as a former NSC official implies direct knowledge of or participation in
the secret deliberations, hence ‘release of such information would compromise the delibera-
tive process.’ This discussion, of course, lies at the very heart of this book. These objections
were finally resolved only in January 2007.

3. ‘The Japan Problem’: The Coalescence of the Revisionist Paradigm 60
America’s Economic Crisis 60
The Coalescence of Revisionist Thinking 64
Revisionism and the Policy Process in the Bush Administration 79
Part II The Clinton Transition: Institutionalizing
Revisionist Assumptions
4. Out with the Old, In with the New 89
The 1992 Campaign 89
The New Administration’s Early Months 94
Revising Japan Policy: The Deputies Committee 101
The DC Deliberations 107
5. Implementing the New Japan Policy 122
The US Signals its New Approach 122
xiii
Negotiating with Japan 130
The Early Framework Dynamics: The American View 137
Part III Contested Norms, Rejected Norms
6. Getting to No: The Evolution of Japan’s Rejectionist Line 143
Contested International Norms 144
Japan’s Growing Discontent with the Cooperationist Approach 147
The Development of Japan’s Rejectionist Line 156
Reading Clinton’s Policy: Japan Tries to Say No 164
Japan’s Rejectionists Coalesce 175
7. Negotiating the Framework: Doomed from the Start? 179
Japan’s Diplomatic Offensive: The Managed Trade Mantra 180
The US Wavers 187
America Retreats, Japan Advances 193
The Hosokawa Summit Fails 202
8. The Auto End Game: From Potential Blowup to Anticlimax 209
The Re-emergence of Traditionalist Voices 209

Jonathan McHale
William Rapp
Bob Reis
Joan Spero
Laura Stone
Department of Defense
Paul Giarra
Michael Green
Robin Sak Sakoda
xv
Department of the Treasury
Roger Altman
Timothy Geithner
Department of Commerce
Phil Agress
Kevin Kearns
Marjory Searing
Office of the US Trade Representative
Wendy Cutler
Glen Fukushima
Merit Janow
Charles Lake
James Southwick
S. Linn Williams
Ira Wolf
Other Clinton Administration Officials
Raymond Ahearn
Barry Carter
Robert Fauver
Ira Magaziner

Kenneth Courtis
Richard Cronin
Peter Ennis
Ishihara Nobuo
Iwatake Toshihiro
Kashiyama Yukio
Karube Kensuke
Kimura Tadakazu
Komori Yoshihisa
Miki Tatsu
Michael Mochizuki
Don Oberdorfer
Robert Orr
Elizabeth Terry
Nathaniel Thayer
xvii
List of Interviews (selected)
List of Tables and Figures
Ta bles
1.1 Revisionist views of Japan and the US Japan relationship 17
2.1 Contending views of Japan and the US Japan relationship 27
4.1 Japan policy review in the Clinton administration, March 1993 102
5.1 The Framework’s sectoral and structural ‘baskets’ 133
6.1 Cooperationist and rejectionist views of the US 148
9.1 A scorecard: Clinton’s ‘results oriented’ goals, and outcomes 235
Figures
2.2 US Japan trade (1946 80) 29
3.1 US Japan trade (1946 92) 61
xviii
List of Abbreviations

OECD Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development
SCA Semiconductor Agreement
SIA Semiconductor Industry Association
SII Structural Impediments Initiative
STR Special Trade Representative
UAW United Auto Workers
USTR United States Trade Representative
VER Voluntary Export Restraint
VIE Voluntary Import Expansion
WTO World Trade Organization
List of Abbreviations
xx
PART I
Setting the Stage
The Rise of Revisionism
This page intentionally left blank
1
Explaining the Framework Negotiations
The US–Japan Framework negotiations of 1993–5 represent perhaps the
nastiest and most confrontational of bilateral trade disputes ever. In retro-
spect, it is also clear that these negotiations marked a turning point in
postwar US–Japan relations. First, the Framework led to a sea change in
terms of the tone and substance of the relationship. A growing level of
confrontation and distrust between the two countries marked the two
decades that preceded the Framework. In the US, the perception in
the late 1980s was that Japan’s economic juggernaut represented a real
threat—first to jobs, then to the survival of many industries, and finally
even to the high-tech future of America. With the Japanese economy
booming, and America’s in seemingly inexorable decline, some predicted
that the Japanese economy would outstrip the US in a few short decades;

ations, and both held to a stubborn hard-line position all the way through
the end of the Framework. This period featured the first and only failure of
a postwar US–Japan Summit meeting and a marked decrease in amity
between the two governments. The blowup over autos, coupled with the
fallout from the Okinawa rape, led many to worry that even the spirit of
compromise, the desire to cooperatively diffuse trade tensions for the sake
of the overall relationship, seemed to be dissipating. One could hear
expressions of concern over the very future of the bilateral relationship,
on both sides of the Pacific.
Since this period, however, the bilateral relationship has steadily
improved, in all facets. Since 1996 the US has essentially refrained from
raising contentious market-opening demands. Although there is always
tension when US and Japanese negotiators get together, the level of
confrontation has been miniscule compared to the Framework period.
Also, on the security side, the US and Japan have reaffirmed the import-
ance of the relationship. The two sides have cooperated on crises such as
dealing with North Korea, and both sides have recognized the mutual
benefit of maintaining some US military presence in Japan. In more
recent years, Japan’s support of America’s ‘Global War on Terror,’ and
then its invasion of Iraq, prompted the George W. Bush administration
to label the relationship ‘the best ever.’ It is as if the tensions and
economic rivalry that marked the previous two decades had never even
happened.
The Framework was also a turning point in that the substance of Ameri-
can trade demands has changed dramatically and perhaps permanently.
Prior to the Framework, American demands had focused on liberalizing the
market process in Japan by identifying and removing barriers that protected
4
Clinton and Japan