TOKYO — Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan announced on China and South Korea that object to any signs of Japan’s remilitarization. In retrospect, Japan’s rewritten constitution under the auspices of the allied . Japan’s remilitarization will have a major shift in the geopolitical. Japan may be picking up the pace on its long and steady path toward normalizing its military. The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported Aug.

Author: Tojashakar Bazahn
Country: Mayotte
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Personal Growth
Published (Last): 8 May 2014
Pages: 377
PDF File Size: 9.41 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.63 Mb
ISBN: 467-1-45540-343-8
Downloads: 91511
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vudozuru

This research paper is divided into five main parts. The second part explains the main assumptions of the theoretical framework employed to answer the main research problem. The fifth part elaborates the implication of the Japanese changing defence policy for the regional politics followed by the conclusion. The main focus of article nine is based on the renouncing war and use of force by Japan.

So the question arises what has changed now that seems to deepen the division in Japan over the article nine?

The answer is associated with the interpretation of the article nine which discourages the role of military forces in case of an attack. The reinterpretation of article nine is seen as an attack on the Pacific traditions since it would allow the forces of Japan to participate in war or conflict if one of the allies of Japan remiliatrization threatened. Some of the advocates of a pacifist Japan are deeming it as a mean to stoke security concerns of the regional states, as it has the propensity to directly jeopardize the interests of Japan as well.

Speaking of article nine and its implications on the defence policy remilitarizatin Japan, it is important to understand the basic idea of the agreement between Liberal Democratic Party LDP and the ally of the government Komeito signed on 1st July The interpretation of agreement backed by the Abe administration on article nine may allow Japan to exercise the right to use force in case of a threat or use of force by any state. The use of prefix before the militarization of Japan in the title of the research topic surely has remi,itarization effect attached to it, since it reflects the traces of proclivity.

It is, therefore, important to highlight that it is factually wrong to dub the recent wave of changes in the security policy of Japan as mere militarization. That being said, the main argument of the research study will focus on the seemingly two opposite schools of thought, it comprises those who have been observing the revisions in the security policy of Japan for the past couple of years.

Given the nature of the problem under investigation, the main assumptions espoused by Gideon Rose helps to understand the research problem. Among many other reasons, one of the compelling reasons for the choice of neo-classical realism is linked to the number of variables addressed by the advocates of the theory. First, the intersection of internal and external variables in the policy of Japan is relevant to the research problem addressed in this study.

Likewise, remilitarizatiion research involves the understanding of not only the external pressures in impacting the security policy of Japan but the role of public opinion in addition to other domestic variables in shaping the security policy of Japan.

The very integrating nature of neoclassical realism is what makes it different than the neorealist and classical realism. Since it incorporates variables at two distinct levels by providing an explanation of the policy choices, and how the process of grand strategy is formulated at the national level. Simply put, the theory of neo-classical realism is the combination of structural variables and domestic variables from a pluralistic perspective.

Conceptually, the idea of a grand strategy is also important to remilitagization here. Since it explains the role of non-military means in terms of politics and how the ideology of nation serves to increase the power of a state.

It basically highlights a level japna variables of systemic and domestic level interact with the state level dynamics. It involves the role of public opinion as well, as the choice of policies and how the leadership reads a particular situation in terms of making the decision of going to war and peace.

In other words, the interaction of these variables at two different variables defines the policy choices in Japan. To put simply, the interplay of the unit level and international variables do influence the policies and perception of a national leadership in Japan.

After determining the national goals perceived by the leadership of Japan, the choice of the means required for the attainment of the goals is important. The behavior of Japan towards the changing dynamics of international politics along with domestic factors facilitates in pursuing the desired goals.

In the Japanese context, the international environment can be taken as the changing polarity of the international structure in addition to the domestic constraint in form of opposition of the public opinion to any security revision that could lead Japan to more of an aggressive state.


Japan’s Remilitarization: Implications in East Asia – Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)

This assumption is inspired from the arguments of the classical realism in form of identifying the strategic environment.

Likewise, the national interests of Japan can be assessed by overviewing the order of national priorities. Hence, the material capability of Japan in the international system and the threats are also taken into consideration. Although the Meiji period is associated with reformation and an epoch of change for Japan; particularly, in the economic and political sphere, however, the two Japanese victories over China and Korea are worth mentioning in order to understand the contemporary changes in the security doctrine of Japan.

This can be deemed as one of the various causes of tense relations with China. In other words, Sino-Japanese enmity has historical roots as emphasized by the theorist of the realist school of thought.

Military modernization is the second significant factor that promoted a sense of aggression among the Japanese forces. This can be dived into three main phases: The third phase focused on building the link between the military with social and political sectors of the society1.

Since the overlapping of military, political and social aspects contribute in gaining remilittarization at the societal level. The precursor behind the modernization was accentuated as a result of the threat from the Western world.

Moreover, the dreaded access to Japan was through the sea, the attention, therefore, was given to the development of navy. Given the progress of the development, one can easily say that the structures, which promoted the militaristic forces, continue to dominate Japan regardless of the Meiji reformation. In simple words, the promotion of militancy is connected with these medieval structures and low purchasing power of the Japanese people, since it diverted Japan towards seeking more markets.

Hence the need for outer markets was achieved in form of breaching the sovereignty of adjoining states. In other hapan, the threat perception of Japan depended on the geographical proximity of Jqpan with the national security of Japan.

One of the dimensions of Korea-Japan relations involves China factor. It can be traced back to when Japan attempted to increase her political, economic clout in Korea in form of developing the military forces of Japan. Despite falling into the Chinese area of influence, various strategies were employed to bring Japanese inclined group into power. Hence, the military became the common tool of achieving the desired goals. Therefore, expansionism was the common remilitariaztion to achieve a significant place in the international arena.

Interestingly, in the past, Japanese viewed expansionist policies as a noble pursuit, which helped the rulers to gain legitimacy for the expansionist policies; for example, securing the territory of Korea in form of bringing it into their area of influence was one of the underlying policies.

Additionally, the war of Japan with China is often cited as the most defining development, which led to the display of immense power for increasing the Japanese influence in Korea. This also brought the Western powers close to China, since both of them perceived a remiltiarization from Japan. Hence, the Western powers witnessed competition in business and the rivalry over Korea between Japan and China, among many reasons.

This strategy was based on the principle of expansionism. Since most of the efforts and policies pursued by the government of Japan displayed a collective aim of acquiring the territories that had strategic meaning for Japan.

Therefore, use of force was the commonly adopted mean to secure and conquer those adjoining territories which had an affiliation with Japan. The main purpose was to increase the area of influence and build Japanese empire, as it played a role in building one strong empire to counter the influence of those western powers that had heterogeneous colonies under their control.

Even in early twentieth century, the social foundation of Japan continued to be dominated by the influence of two main classes: Consequently, it brought more profit and influence for the two classes of Japan followed by the recognition at the international forum. It is based on the principle of international cooperation, which lays stress on playing a responsible role in maintaining international security. The distinct remilitarizatioon of this policy emphasizes on playing an active role rather than a passive role in the global security.

It concerns with an extension of a national interest of a state with the security of its territory, progress as well as the need to coordinate internationally with global actors.

Why the US is no threat to China, but a remilitarised Japan, led by Shinzo Abe, may well be

In simple words, the role of international community is correlated with the national interests of the Japanese state. The first one deals with enhancing the defence capability of Japan.

The second is focused on deepening the alliance between Japan and US. And the third one deals with collaboration and cooperation with other states. According to the official stance, the latest revision was a change in order to respond to increasing Chinese threat5.


To back the premise of the argument, the case of Japanese hostages is cited to justify the inability of the military to save them from the Islamic state. The approval of the new bill is viewed in terms of broadening the scope of article nine to defend its ally The United States as it has been stressed in the strategy paper of Japan. In response, critics of this bill dread the involvement of Japan when it comes to the rivalry of the United States with China in the Middle East.

So the question arises here: Can the so-called principle of collective defence turn into an act of aggression? The critics of Abe government outrightly reject the claims, as Japanese security is guaranteed by the USA. This means that it reflects three main observations: Third, the contours of Japan self-defence forces JSDF have been bounded by the constitution of Japan which can be steadily broadened to attain a controversial form in terms of sparking the controversy of remilitarization.

But the dynamics of changes taking place in the international system based on the distribution of power and military muscle makes it imperative for Japan to maintain peace and order with the help of Japanese forces. Second, the development of flexing military muscle is the natural consequence exercised by those states that have attained a particular position in terms of economic gains. The answer to this question is difficult due to the implied connotation attached with these interchangeable terms.

Therefore, the answer depends on the perspective of the viewer analyzing the actions of a state. However, if one looks at the whole debate from the point of view of policymakers of Japan, one would realize the presence of various threats and pressure in form of changing regional dynamics and internal pressure on the government of Mr.

Abe to maximise security. For example, the focus on mutual cooperation granted approval to the United States to establish military bases, both parties agreed to defend each other. However, it does not mean that it allows the Japan to use its forces in case of an attack in United States by invoking the article nine6.

The role of public opinion can be best understood in form of the protest to the security agreement between Japan and America. The cause of this reaction from the public is grounded in the fears of being embroiled in the battles of America across the world. In other words, people are not cognizant of the international pressures to upgrade security capability in the wake of the emerging threats. For Dueck, the assessment of a policy is connected with the strategic decision-making7.

In simple words, it is important to identify the shifts in military deployment, spending, alliance to examine the change in the position of a state in the international hierarchy in addition to the interplay with the adversary. For example, after the end of the Second World War, the US government had urged Japan to make the change in light of missile technology cooperation and in connection with the production of the F stealth fighter8.

According to one interpretation; Japan is free to sell weapons from multinational to another country, which has the potential to make Japan an interesting alliance partner in terms of improving state to state relations. In the regional context, Japan feels threatened because China is modernizing at a fast pace, Chinese attention to the upgrading military capability and assertive foreign policy are among the few of defining variables.

Japan’s Remilitarization: Implications For Regional Security – Analysis – Eurasia Review

Although Russia is not a direct part of the East Asian region, however, its past conflict over Kuril is something that plays a role in making and changing the threat perception of Rrmilitarization. Coming to the institutional influence and response of Japan, it has developed a Security Council in order to respond to the emerging threats and regional dynamics.

This response is also stressed by one of the assumptions of Neo-Classical realism. As it helps to view how Japan perceives the threats it is confronted with and the likely options to respond. Undoubtedly, the organizational structure of National Security of Japan is similar to the American model; however, the main function of this council may yield different results, as remilitarizatoon is expected to only improve the coordination and cooperation of Japan with its ally and other states9.

For them, the policies and role of Japan in the early 20th century are something to be condemned rather than overlooked. Similarly, the regional states; China in particular, and North Korea perceive Japan with a wary attitude.