JAPAN IN A CHANGING WORLD

Japan has long centered its foreign policy on its bilateral relationship with the United States, a stance supported by the majority of the Japanese. This relationship took its present shape during the decades of the Cold War, and discussions of it within Japan are still based largely on perceptions rooted in the structures of the Cold War era. This is, of course, due in part to the peculiarities of the situation in Asia, including the continued existence of communist governments in China and North Korea. There have been some changes, though.

A 1997 revision of the Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation outlined ways in which Japan would cooperate with America in response to “situations in areas surrounding Japan,” and laws passed the following year provided for the implementation of these new Japanese responsibilities. Japan-U.S. cooperation has become an integral part of the global security framework with the United States at its core, and the bilateral ties have grown accordingly. This whole process can be seen as a response of sorts to the agreement reached among the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in January 1994, which defined the forms of and guidelines for the division of roles in U.S.-European military cooperation.

Even so, the arguments of the so-called realist school in Japan remain mired in a narrowly conceived pro-American stance. These people lack any vision that would allow them to respond effectively to the changes taking place on a global scale. Their position tends to focus primarily on specific circumstances in East Asia and pays little heed to America’s global strategic thinking; the realist view also puts insufficient weight on recent trends toward alliances based on shared values, particularly human rights and humanitarianism, which are increasingly underpinning responses to regional conflicts. The realist school does not fully comprehend that alliances in the post–Cold War era are increasingly based on the presumption that they are justified by certain ideals.

Liberalist thinkers in Japan, meanwhile, seek to establish that the end of the Cold War should mean the end of the use of military force. They tend to criticize American involvement in any conflict as a bid by that nation for military supremacy, thus feeding the persistent undercurrent of sentiment against the United States among the Japanese people. This sentiment could be described as a sort of antipathy toward absolute power rather than simple anti-Americanism—a sentiment seen not just in Japan but also among the people of France and other European countries. It is a feeling that has grown in reaction to the increasingly interventionist approach the United States has taken in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks last year.

The main issue for Japan’s foreign policy in the post–Cold War era is how to make international contributions that respond to the needs of global society while maintaining the alliance with the United States as the centerpiece. These contributions include military efforts, such as Japan’s participation in peacekeeping operations, and nonmilitary assistance in economic and technical fields. In all these areas Japan is mainly active in Asia.

In this issue we include an article by Terashima Jitsurô setting forth, from the liberalist point of view, some underlying Japanese concerns about American foreign policy. Just as in Europe, there are many people in Japan who fear that their nation will be dragged into going along with America’s hegemonic policies. While I believe that these concerns sound an important alarm about potential dangers in this relationship, it must also be said that by criticizing America to the extent that they do, these arguments depart somewhat from the general global perception of conditions today. In this sense the liberalists have also been unable to free themselves from their ties to Cold War thinking. In addition, at times they reveal a flawed understanding of the facts.

Terashima has harsh words for the U.S. expectations of Japan described in a Rand Corporation report issued last year, claiming that they position Japan within the United States’ global strategy in a manner going beyond the regional scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. But it is common knowledge around the globe that since the end of the Cold War Washington has sought to achieve a division of strategic and functional roles among its partners as part of its organization of its military potential. This understanding is taken as the basis for discussions among NATO members, for instance, about dispatching armed forces to areas outside their region. Arguments about the nature of the Japan-U.S. security framework should be predicated on the recognition that this framework is itself a shifting thing. Seen in this light, Terashima’s article seems to reject the very basis for debate even as it presents his arguments. Terashima also claims that the new foreign policy tack of President George W. Bush’s administration is based on a 1993 proposal on the post–Cold War role for the United States made by a group led by Dick Cheney, now vice-president. In reality, though, the foundations for this foreign policy have been long in the making, with careful preparations beginning in the second half of the 1980s, before the Cold War ended.

Our second article is by Nariai Osamu, who criticizes Japan’s economic diplomacy as lacking a coherent strategy. He argues that Japan should play a leading role in the formation of a new global economic order, proposing standards and frameworks in areas like environmental protection that can replace the “global standards” pushed by the United States. Nariai also states that Japan must contribute to the tightening of cooperative ties in Asia by expanding trade and investment liberalization in the region.

In our third selection, Yoshida Fumihiko focuses on the way Europeans are dealing with environmental issues through joint governance involving national and local governments, business corporations, and nonprofit groups. He argues that Japan should take the initiative to achieve similar results in Asia, calling for the establishment of an Asian Environmental Agency to conduct environmental studies and serve as an information clearinghouse on the model of the European Environmental Agency. (Watanabe Hirotaka, Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)

© 2002 Japan Echo Inc.