Search results

Systematically analyses the impact of external military crises on Japanese security policy expansion in the post-Cold War period.Focuses on the widening of Japan's security posture in external security affairs and investigates the causes of this critical changeIdentifies the external military crisis as a critical determinant of change in Japanese security policyUnpacks the deep structures within the Japanese decision-making processes, especially during and after military crisesExamines five key military crises in detail: the 1990–1 Persian Gulf War; the 1994 North Korean Nuclear Crisis; the 1996 Taiwan Straits Crisis, the 1998 Taepodong Crisis; and 2001 September 11 attacks that led to the US-led war against terrorism in Afghanistan and IraqDraws on over 70 interviews the author has conducted with officials, former officials, and academics in universities and think tanks in Japan, the United States, South Korea and Singapore, including officials who were directly involved in the crisis decision-making processThis book is a detailed study of the role that external military crises played in the development and growth of Japanese security policies in the period following the end of the Cold War. This evolution can be seen in the widened role of the Self-Defence Force (SDF) in shaping Japan's security priorities, as well as its proactive contribution to regional and international security. Focusing on four key case studies – international peacekeeping in 1992, regional defence in 1997–99, global missions in 2003–05, and collective self-defence in 2014–15 – the author argues that the Japanese security policymaking elite achieved security policy expansion by utilizing external military crises as policy windows, inflating and deflating threat elements to circumvent the constraints and justify the implementation of security policy initiatives

Abstract
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and his government have implemented bold defence, diplomatic and economic policies against the challenges to the status quo order posed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and increased Chinese assertiveness. What do these policies unveil about Japan's strategy and response to the transformed strategic environment? This article argues that the Kishida government has upgraded Japan to a front-line guardian of the status quo order. To achieve its front-line role, the Kishida government has consolidated Japan's deterrence policy, namely focusing on two main pillars—military and rules. To ensure Japan's frontline role is sustainable, this policy paper makes three recommendations: Japan must develop strategic clarity and clear operational plans on how to respond to a regional contingency, such as the Taiwan Strait; Japan must resolve domestic problems that prevent the increase in defence spending to 2 per cent in the period to 2027. Japan's role as a front-line state to protect the status quo order is very much dependent on the availability of resources that would be provided by this increase in defence spending; Japan should re-energize its efforts towards east Asia through a sustained diplomatic, economic and security means. This is important in securing support for Japan's preferred vision of regional and global order from not only like-minded partners and friends in east Asia, but also China. Japan's approach should underscore how the extant status quo order benefits all states, including China, especially in terms of spreading economic prosperity, development and connectivity.

East Asia is usually associated with war and conflict. This applies to its historical past, as well as to the present post-Cold War period. In fact, this pessimism on the region has hardened with the worsening structural US-China competition since 2010. Challenging this prevailing view, this special issue argues that the concepts of peace and peaceful change are critical elements to explain East Asian regional dynamics in the post-Cold War period. It poses the following questions: (a) how could peace and peaceful change be analysed conceptually at the regional level?; (b) what type of peace and peaceful change notions are applicable to East Asia?; (c) what are the sources and mechanisms of regional peace in East Asia and its sub-regions and how have the sources and mechanisms changed over the post-Cold War period?; (d) how has the worsening US-China structural competition affected the prospects of peace in East Asia?; and (e) how do the middle powers, namely Japan, South Korea, Australia and Indonesia, contribute to peace and peaceful change in the region? The special issue is the first attempt to systematically apply the concepts of peace and peaceful change on East Asia. The articles identify the sources and mechanisms of peace and peaceful change, apply an eclectic conceptual approach that combines traditional and non-traditional IR theories; and assess the prospects of peace in East Asia in the context of the worsening structural tensions presented by the US-China competition. (Pac Rev / GIGA)

Northeast Asia is usually associated with conflict and war. Challenging this prevailing view, this article shows that the sub-region has achieved minimal peace since its peaceful transition from the Cold War to the post-Cold War period. The questions posed are: (a) what factors are responsible for Northeast Asia's minimal peace?; and (b) how will these factors respond to the worsening US-China competition since 2010? This article's argument is two-fold. First, Northeast Asia's minimal peace is explained by three realist-liberal factors: America's hegemony; strong economic interdependence among the Northeast Asian states; and a stable institutional structure in East Asia, including Northeast Asia. These factors kept a stable balance of power, ensured development and prosperity, and mitigated the political and strategic tensions between the states. Second, Northeast Asia's minimal peace would be durable to counter the negative effects of the Sino-US competition in the coming decades. While the economic interdependence and institutional building factors have shown resilience, the US hegemony faces a robust challenge from China. Nevertheless, the US hegemony is durable because of America's enduring relative strategic and economic advantages over China, the expanded role of America's regional allies to preserve US preponderance and China's problems in building an alternative regional order. (Pac Rev / GIGA)

Japan has emerged as a critical strategic actor in East Asia amidst intensifying US-China structural competition since 2010. Southeast Asia/ASEAN is an important dimension of Japan's foreign policy expansion. This paper argues that Japan's foreign policy is driven by the aim of becoming an alternative source of strategic stability in Southeast Asia/ASEAN as opposed to the United States and China. This is explained by analysing Japan's foreign policy in regional balance of power and ASEAN-led multilateralism.

AbstractThe paper examines the domestic politics explanations to Japanese security policy expansion between the Cold War and post-Cold War periods. In response to the various explanations offered in the literature, such as the implementation of administrative and institutional reforms since 1994 that resulted in the centralization of the decision-making process, changes to the balance of power of political parties within the Japanese political system, and shift in the type of politicians that dominate the LDP, opposition parties and security policymaking structure, this paper argues that it is important to incorporate collective identity into understanding Japanese security policy expansion. Two reasons highlight the importance of collective identity – first, without collective identity, it is difficult to understand the type of security policy produced as the discussion of vision is omitted; and, second, collective identity reveals the organizational make-up of the security policymaking structure that is responsible for the formulation of security policy. To explicate the collective identity–institution relationship, this paper focuses on Japanese security identity and the Japanese security policymaking regime in the Cold War and post-Cold War periods. Two security identities for Japan are examined – the peace-state and international-state; and three elements of the regime are studied – the agents involved or marginalized in the security policymaking process, the decision-making structure of the security policymaking, and the role of the US. This paper aids in our understanding of how collective identities are sustained and supported within an institution, and how Japanese security policy expanded in the post-Cold War period.