Final Paper

I. Introduction
A. Background Information
B. Thesis Statement

II. The current situation of the Security Alliance
A. Purpose of the Alliance
B. Japan’s support for US bases
1. Okinawa bases
2. Omoiyari Yosan
3. US economic bargaining

III. The problems with the Alliance
A. Japan’s dilemma between the Constitution Article 9 and US nuclear deterrent
B.Suspicion raised in the East Asia Pacific region
C. Biased political cooperation
1. Japan’s refueling in the Indian Ocean
2. Dispatch of SDF to Iraq

IV. Solution
A. The United Nations
1. Ideology
2. Mechanism
B. Japan’s contribution to the United Nations

V. Conclusion

Minako Hayashi s101065
Prof. James
Theme Writing
February 21, 2008

Japan’s Foreign Policy:
Weakening the US-Japan Security Alliance and enhancing the United Nations

I. Introduction
At the beginning of this year, there were debates about whether Japan should continue refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean. The debates were controversial because Japan’s refueling did not mean Japan’s mere support for the US activity but also support for “war against terrorism”. The USA uses the oil given by Japan to fight against terrorists in Afghanistan. Even if Japan does not participate in the actual combats, refueling the American ships indirectly encourages the war. Japan is almost in the same situation in the matter of the Iraq War led by the USA and Japan’s support by dispatch of the SDF to Iraq. Even though many Japanese may not agree with the US position about the Afghanistan War and Iraq War, Japan is under pressure to continue the refueling because rejecting the US expectation may damage the US-Japan Security Alliance between the two countries. However, compliance with the US decision is not the only choice and this paper proposes an alternative solution to the problem. Japan should weaken the US-Japan alliance and focus its foreign policy on the United Nations in order to establish its credible and autonomous international status.

II. Current situation of the Security Alliance
The US-Japan Security Alliance was agreed during the Cold War. At the time, the United Nations did not function well in protecting a country in times of emergency because Russia and the USA exercised veto in the Security Council. Japan, which had no army or self defense force at the time, was vulnerable in that situation. If left alone, Japan could be Russia’s target to expand the communist territory, and, the USA chose to defend Japan under the US-Japan Security Alliance (Shibata 164). Therefore, the alliance was signed as a temporary means of protecting Japan during the Cold War, and it was thought to be unnecessary and to end when the Cold War ended and the United Nations started to work as World’s security operator. To people’s unexpectation, however, the alliance lasted after the end of the Cold War. This is because the alliance was still beneficial to both countries even in the new World order.

During the Cold War, protecting Japan itself was beneficial to the US benefit as well as to Japan in order to sustain the US power in the World against Russia. However, when there was no longer communist threat over Japan, the US morale to defend Japan was weaker. The USA protecting Japan and Japan enjoying the security guarantee by its ally seemed asymmetrical to many, especially to Americans. In order to balance the alliance, Japan offered areas of Japan’s land for US bases which enabled operation of the US forces in times of contingencies in East Asia and the Middle East, as well as in Japan. As well as lending land, Japan backs the US protection of Japan by offering financial support. This is called Omoiyari funding. Omoiyari means considerate and kind, indicating that the funding is not given to serve a specific purpose but the USA can use the funds whenever and wherever necessary. In addition, Japan allows US economic bargaining. For example, the USA often imposes high tariff on products imported from Japan whereas in the other direction, the tariff barrier is usually lower (Difilippo 135). In spite of Japan’s efforts to compensate for its lack of participation in maintaining security in its country, some still criticize Japan as a “free rider” (Kliman 134). Whether the criticism that Japan takes a free ride and that the USA has a disadvantageous burden, is correct or not depends on stance. However, one thing that is true about the alliance is that, at the present, the USA has the upper hand, and Japan has been cautious about internalizing US expectations or demands from fear of being abandoned.

III. Problems with the Alliance
As explained above, the alliance has persisted because of benefits to both countries. In other words, the alliance exists to enhance their national interests. However, their national interests do not always match with the benefit of all countries in the world. Pursuing the national interests brought by the alliance could degrade the world’s overall order as a result. Because of the alliance, Japan, now, faces three main dilemmas between national interests and world-wide security.

First, the US nuclear deterrent contradicts Japan’s stance that all nuclear weapons in the World should be abolished (Osius 66). Japan is the only country that has experienced the devastation of nuclear weapons, and therefore Japan should continue to send the message and encourage other countries to dismantle the nuclear weapons that they possess. However, the fact that Japan relies on the US nuclear deterrent as the ultimate solution undermines Japan’s persuasiveness.

Second, the alliance and the presence of the US forces in Japan’s land itself raises suspicion in the East-Asia Pacific region. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation allowed the operation of the USA and Japan in the “areas surrounding Japan” in times of emergency (Huges 200). This expanded operability derives from the belief that the countries around Japan are “dangerous” and have to be watched. The attitude of Japan and the USA towards Japan’s neighbor countries makes them wary, and prevents Japan and surrounding countries from fostering friendly relationship. China fears that the US forces may be waiting to interfere with the matters of Taiwan. Also, North Korea is cautious about US actions because the US might assist South Korea to absorb North Korea that is a “trouble-maker”. The joint research between the USA and Japan on “Theater Missile Defense” amazed the surrounding countries especially. The system of the Theater Missile Defense has been developed in order to stop missiles being dropped on Japan, not to attack or retaliate against an enemy. However, whatever the intention, it has given the message that Japan and the USA are ready to act against possible attacks (Difilippo 70).

Last, the most important point is that the criteria used to judge the “enemy” to act upon cooperatively under the alliance is often biased. Usually, the judgment on who the enemy is depends on the country’s perspective such as national interest, and there is rarely an absolute enemy. Therefore, judgment on the “enemy” worth being eliminated should be made based on deep consideration from many different perspectives. Cooperative actions between the USA and Japan reflect only two countries’ opinions and may serve their interests only. In many cases it is not even two countries’ common opinion, but it is the US opinion only and Japan follows it because Japan wants to maintain the alliance. Examples are the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Japan is not so much concerned about Afghanistan and Iraq, but Japan is concerned more with endorsing US opinion, whether it is right or not. Although Japan’s support for the USA in these areas was prohibited by the Constitution Article 9 originally, the interpretation of the Constitution was expanded to meet the expectation of the USA. The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law was passed to allow Japan to refuel the US ships in the Indian Ocean, and the Iraq bill was passed to legitimatize the SDF humanitarian activities in rear areas in Iraq (Tamura 146). In order to have its own opinion and contribute to world peace, Japan should not overemphasize the security alliance. As seen so far, Japan’s national interests from the security alliance obstructs the achievement of world order, and therefore, Japan should shift its weight from the bilateral policy with the USA to a more international and multilateral organization.

IV. Solution
Japan should revitalize the United Nations and participate more in its activities as well as weakening the US-Japan alliance because of the ideology and the mechanism of the organization.

The United Nations was established so as not to repeat the tragedy of the First World War and the Second World War. The goal is world peace, and the unit is the world, not sovereign states. Therefore, global security is prioritized over national interests of sovereign states. In addition, the United Nations is basically opposed to using armed forces to solve problems as armed forces caused the Wars. The organization aims to maintain world peace by collective security. The system of collective security enables all members of the United Nations to impose a sanction on a country which has taken rogue action, such as trying to invade another country. The sanctions against a “dangerous” country start with political and economical ones. Military sanctions are the last option and they are imposed only when the “dangerous” country does not respond to the ultimatum (Shibata 164).

The mechanism of the United Nations guarantees neutrality to a great extent, though not completely. Every country, whether it is powerful or not, has one vote in the General Assembly, meaning that any member of the organization has an equal opportunity to express its position in theory. The decisions taken by the United Nations, therefore, are more likely to be consensus among the members, rather than biased conviction.

Although the system of the United Nations has more potential to accomplish and maintain peace than the US-Japan security alliance, its multilateral framework still has flaws that need to be improved in order that it functions well enough as the powerful coordinator of the world. Therefore, Japan should proactively support the enhancement of the organization by from financial assistance to humanitarian one. One way is to spread the anti-nuclear movement even more. Another is to give economical support. Japan has been the number one contributor to ODA since around 1990, and Japan should continue this support in the future too. Last, Japan should participate in Peace Keeping Operation activities more as logistical and humanitarian supporters within the constraints of the Constitution Article 9, showing that Japan is not a country of “checkbook diplomacy” as it was once called (Ikezawa 39). As well as supporting the United Nations, Japan should augment its own influence within the multilateral framework by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council.

V. Conclusion
The USA pledged to protect Japan under the US-Japan Security Treaty during the Cold War and this alliance has persisted since then due to the benefits that the two countries give to each other under the treaty. However, Japan which is in weaker position has been careful about meeting US expectations to sustain the relationship. Although the alliance gives Japan security, it places Japan in dilemma between its national interests and global security. The concern with maintaining the alliance has prevented Japan from taking its own decision which it thinks is the best for the overall world. To get out of the dilemma, Japan should keep more distance from America and place more importance on the United Nations. Japan should revitalize this potential multilateral framework by endorsing it economically and politically, and also by boosting Japan’s influence within the organization. At the present, the refueling in the Indian Ocean for the war in Afghanistan is continuing, and some SDF members are still working in Iraq. In order that Japan shifts its foreign policy, Japan should end the refueling and return the SDF from Iraq to Japan. (1883 words)

Works Cited

Difilippo, Anthony. The challenges of the US-Japan military arrangement: competing security transitions in a changing international environment. New York: M.E.Sharpe, 2002.

Huges, Christopher W. Japan’s Security Agenda: Military, Economic & Environmental Dimensions. New York: Lynne Rienner, 2004.

Ikezawa, Natsuki. I don’t know about the Constitution. Tokyo: Shueisha, 2003.

Kliman, Daniel M. Japan’s security strategy in the post-9/11 world. New York: Praeger, 2006.

Osius, Ted. The US-Japan security alliance: why it matters and how to strengthen it. New York: Praeger, 2002.

Shibata, Yoshinobu. Politics and Economy. Tokyo: Hamajima, 2005.

Tamura, Shigenobu, and Yoshio Suginoo. Japan’s Security. Tokyo: Huyou, 2004.

Minor Assignment 8: Full-length Draft

Japan’s foreign policy:
Weakening the US-Japan Security Alliance and enhancing the United Nations

At the beginning of this year, there were debates about whether Japan should continue refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean. The debates were controversial because Japan’s refueling did not mean Japan’s mere support for the US activity but also support for “war against terrorism”. The USA uses the oil given by Japan to fight against terrorists in Afghanistan. Even if Japan does not participate in the actual combats, refueling the American ships indirectly encourages the war. Japan is almost in the same situation in the matter of the Iraq War led by the USA and Japan’s support by the SDF dispatch. Even though Japan does not necessarily agree with the US position about the Afghanistan War and Iraq War, Japan is under pressure to continue the refueling because rejecting the US expectation may damage the US-Japan Security Alliance between the two countries. However, compliance with the US decision is not the only choice and this paper proposes an alternative solution to the problem. Japan should weaken the US-Japan alliance and focus its foreign policy on the United States in order to establish its credible and autonomous international status.

The US-Japan Security Treaty was agreed during the Cold War. At the time, the United Nations did not function well in protecting a country in times of emergency because Russia and the USA exercised veto in the Security Council. Japan, which had no army or self defense force at the time, was vulnerable in that situation. If left alone, Japan could be Russia’s target to expand the communist territory, and, the USA chose to defend Japan under the US-Japan Security Alliance. Therefore, the treaty was signed as a temporary means of protecting Japan during the Cold War, and it was thought to be unnecessary and to end when the Cold War ended and the United Nations started to work as World’s security operator. To people’s unexpectation, however, the alliance lasted after the end of the Cold War. This is because the alliance was still beneficial to both countries even in the new World order.

During the Cold War, protecting Japan itself was beneficial to the US benefit as well as to Japan in order to sustain the US power in the World against Russia. However, when there was no longer communism threat over Japan, the US morale to defend Japan was weaker. The USA protecting Japan and Japan enjoying the security guarantee by its ally seemed asymmetrical to many, especially to Americans. In order to balance the alliance, Japan offered areas of Japan’s land for the US bases which enableds operation of the US forces in times of contingencies in East Asia and Middle East as well as in Japan. As well as lending land, Japan backs the US protection of Japan by offering financial support. This is called Omoiyari funding. Omoiyari means considerate and kind, indicating that the funding is not given to serve a specific purpose but the USA can use the funds whenever and wherever necessary. In addition, Japan allows US economic bargaining. For example, the USA often imposes high tariff on products imported from Japan whereas in reverse direction, the tariff barrier is usually lower. In spite of Japan’s efforts to compensate for its lack of participation in maintaining security in its country, some still criticize Japan as a “free rider”. Whether the criticism that Japan takes a free ride and that the USA has a disadvantageous burden, is correct or not depends on the stance. However, one thing that is true about the alliance is that, at the current, the USA has the upper hand, and Japan has been cautious about internalizing the US expectation or demand from the fear of being abandoned.

As explained above, the alliance has persisted because of benefits to both countries. In other words, the alliance exists to enhance their national interests. However, national interests do not always match with the benefit of all countries in the world. Pursuing the national interests brought by the alliance could degrade the world’s overall order as a result. Because of the alliance, Japan, now, faces three main dilemmas between national interests and world-wide security. First, the US nuclear deterrent contradicts Japan’s stance that all nuclear weapons in the World should be abolished. Japan is the only country that has experienced the devastation of nuclear weapons, and therefore Japan should continue to send the message and encourage other countries to dismantle the nuclear weapons that they possess. However, the fact that Japan relies on the US nuclear deterrent as the ultimate solution undermines Japan’s persuasiveness.

Second, the alliance and the presence of the US forces in Japan’s land itself raises suspicion in the East-Asia Pacific region. The 1997 Revised Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation allowed the operation of the USA and Japan in the “areas surrounding Japan” in times of emergency. This expanded operability derives from the belief that the countries around Japan are “dangerous” and have to be watched. The attitude of Japan and the USA towards Japan’s neighbor countries makes them wary, and prevents Japan and surrounding countries from fostering friendly relationship. China fears that the US forces may be waiting to interfere with the matters of Taiwan. Also, North Korea is cautious about US actions because the US might assist the South Korea to absorb the North Korea that is a “trouble-maker”. The joint research between the USA and Japan on “Theater Missile Defense” amazed the surrounding countries especially. The system of the Theater Missile Defense has been developed in order to stop missiles being dropped on Japan, not to attack or retaliate against an enemy. However, whatever the intention, it has given the message that Japan and the USA are ready to act against possible attacks.

Last, the most important point is that the criteria used to judge the “enemy” to act upon cooperatively under the alliance is often biased. Usually, the judgment on who the enemy is depends on the country’s perspective such as national interest, and there is rarely an absolute enemy. Therefore, judgment on the “enemy” worth being eliminated should be made based on deep consideration from many different perspectives. Cooperative actions between the USA and Japan reflect only two countries’ opinion and may serve their interests only. In many cases it is not even two countries’ common opinion, but it is the US opinion only and Japan follows it because Japan wants to maintain the alliance. Examples are the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. Japan is not so much concerned about Afghanistan and Iraq, but Japan is concerned more with endorsing the US opinion whether it is right or not. Although Japan’s support for the USA in these areas was prohibited by the Constitution Article 9 originally, the interpretation of the Constitution was expanded to meet the expectation of the USA. The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law was passed to allow Japan to refuel the US ships in the Indian Ocean, and the Iraq bill was passed to legitimatize the SDF humanitarian activities in rear areas in Iraq. In order to have its own opinion and contribute to world peace, Japan should not overemphasize the security alliance. As seen so far, Japan’s national interests from the security alliance obstructs the achievement of world order, and therefore, Japan should shift its weight from the bilateral policy with the USA to a more international and multilateral organization.

Japan should revitalize the United Nations and participate more in its activities as well as weakening the US-Japan alliance because of the ideology and the mechanism of the organization. The United Nations was established so as not to repeat the tragedy of the First World War and the Second World War. The goal is world peace, and the unit is the world, not sovereign states. Therefore, global security is prioritized to national interests of sovereign states. In addition, the United Nations is basically opposed to using armed forces to solve problems as armed forces caused the Wars. The organization aims to maintain world peace by collective security. The system of collective security enables all members of the United Nations to impose a sanction on a country which has taken a rogue action such as trying to invade another country. The sanctions against a “dangerous” country start with political and economical ones. Military sanctions are the last option and they are imposed only when the “dangerous” country does not respond to the ultimatum.

The mechanism of the United Nations guarantees neutrality to a great extent, though not completely. Every country, whether it is powerful or not, has one vote in the General Assembly, meaning that any member of the organization has an equal opportunity to express its position in theory. The decisions taken by the United Nations, therefore, are more likely to be consensus among the members, rather than biased conviction.

Although the system of the United Nations has more potential to accomplish and maintain peace than the US-Japan security alliance, its multilateral framework still has flaws that need to be improved in order that it functions well enough as the powerful coordinator of the world. Therefore, Japan should proactively support the enhancement of the organization by from financial assistance to humanitarian one. Three kinds of contribution can be suggested. One is to disseminate the anti-nuclear movement even more. Another is to give economical support. Japan has been the number one contributor to the ODA since around 1990, and Japan should continue this support in the future too. Last, Japan should participate in PKO activities more as logistical and humanitarian supporters within the constraints of the Constitution Article 9, showing that Japan is not a country of “checkbook diplomacy” as it was once called. As well as supporting the United Nations, Japan should augment its own influence within the multilateral framework by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council.

The USA pledged to protect Japan under the US-Japan Security Treaty during the Cold War and this alliance has persisted since then due to the benefits that the two countries give to each other under the treaty. However, Japan which is in weaker position has been careful about meeting the US expectations to sustain the relationship. Although the alliance gives Japan security, it places Japan in dilemma between its national interests and global security. The concern with maintaining the alliance has prevented Japan from taking its own decision which it thinks is the best for the overall world. To get out of the dilemma, Japan should keep more distance from America and place more importance on the United Nations. Japan should revitalize this potential multilateral framework by endorsing it economically and politically, and also by boosting Japan’s influence within the organization. At the present, the refueling in the Indian Ocean for the war in Afghanistan is continuing, and some SDF members are still working in Iraq. What Japan can do now to shift its foreign policy, Japan should end the refueling and return the SDF from Iraq to Japan.

Minor Assignment 7: Works Cited

Works Cited

Tamura, Shigenobu, and Yoshio Suginoo. Text book: Japan’s security. Tokyo: Huyou, 2004.

Huges, Christopher W. Japan’s security agenda: military, economic & environmental dimensions. The US: Lynne Rienner, 2004.

Difilippo, Anthony. The challenges of the US-Japan military arrangement: competing security transitions in a changing international environment. The US: M.E.Sharpe, 2002.

Osius, Ted. The US-Japan security alliance: why it matters and how to strengthen it. The US: Praeger, 2002.

Kliman, Danlel M. Japan’s security strategy in the post-9/11 world. The US: Praeger, 2006.

Ikezawa, Natsuki. I don’t know about the Constitution. Japan: Shueisha, 2003.