The author, 67, is former ambassador to Korea and France, and currently a special visiting professor at Aoyama Gakuin University and a committee member of the Asahi Shimbun Asia Network.

"The United States and Japan stand together … for the advancement of core universal values…." These words are found in the first section of a joint Japan-U.S. statement issued on June 29, 2006. What universal values are being referred to? The joint statement cites "freedom, human dignity and human rights, democracy, the market economy, and the rule of law." At a first glance, these words sound very sensible.

Many people will accept that Japan and the United States share the values mentioned above. However, can the two countries proudly vow to other nations that they will "advance" these values? That is particularly questionable with respect to their relationships with Asian countries.

The joint statement says, "Asia's … transformation is underway, creating a region that increasingly embraces the universal values of democracy, freedom, human rights, the market economy and the rule of law."

Is this really the case? From a long-range point of view, it certainly looks as if democracy and the market economy are making progress in Asia.

However, in South Korea, younger generations see the United States as a far more overwhelming threat than North Korea. As for China, even if it is a stakeholder in shared interests, it is far from being a nation which embraces those values. Furthermore, issues relating to Japan's reflection on its colonial rule and its wartime responsibility cannot be avoided in relation to sharing values with Asian countries.

In such circumstances, are Japan and the United States trying to deal with Asian countries based only on a principle of advancing freedom, democracy and the market economy? If that is the case, what specific ways and means are there for achieving the objective? The more I pondered the issue, the more I came to believe that there are at least two things that are indispensable in order to advance the sharing of values in Asia.

The first should be the development of a common awareness among Asian countries, such as between Japan and China, and also between Japan and South Korea. Democratization and respect for human rights are essential for China, South Korea should abolish authoritarianism and narrow-minded nationalism, and Japan should reflect more deeply on its "past" deeds. Japan should strictly refrain from taking a hypocritical stance in Asia.

It is only natural that Japan and the United States should react strongly to the launching of missiles by North Korea. However, that is not merely because the launch posed a threat to peace and safety in the Far East. Furthermore, even if the possibility that the North Korean stance could cast a damper over international efforts on the nuclear non-proliferation issue is claimed as a reason for the response, it does not fully explain the situation. The fact is that the North's stance on missile launches and the abduction cases runs totally counter to the Japanese belief in peace and democracy established following its reflection on its World War II conduct, as well as the international premises which Japan follows in adhering to that belief. That is the very reason why Japan and the United States are taking such a severe stance towards North Korea.

In the current international situation, it is almost self-evident that a Japan-U.S. strategic alliance produces benefits and advantages. It is also clear that the alliance is designed to protect the values of democracy and freedom. Such values, however, must be enhanced within each nation before being "shared" with others.

If Japan and the United States call for sharing their values with others merely on the basis of their alliance, while the U.S. keeps itself from reflecting on its flaunting of human rights within the Guantanamo base in Cuba, and Japan itself remains negligent about enhancing the values of democracy and human rights through its reflection on its "past," the "common values" they refer to may be just like fine-looking clothes covering their military alliance.It would thus be the hypocrisy of concealing armor beneath clothes.

As is the case with any theatrical performance, a "theatre of politics" will be of significance only when it challenges taboos, with the audience unwittingly becoming enthralled with the performance. That may be in the form of directing an event as part of history. It is to be noted, however, that the word "hypocrisy" in Greek, from which it was derived, means the "act of playing a part on the stage."

However skillful a direction on the stage may be, it will not simply lead to the sharing of values. That is because the sharing of values will be achieved through common experiences in the arena of actual behavior rather than through experiences in a theatrical arena.