Japanese foreign policy : the emerging logic of multilateralism
1
Citation
0
Reference
20
Related Paper
Abstract:
Preface Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Introduction What is Multilateralism? Case Studies of the United Nations A Logic of Multilateralism in International Security An Emerging Logic of Multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific From Free Rider to Navigator Bibliography IndexCite
Abstract : Is America's security policy in the Pacific inappropriate to security needs in the 21st century? Does this policy paradigm degrade otherwise good relations with japan, one of America's most important Pacific allies and trading partners? In responding 'yes' to both questions, this paper examines historical trends and events defining Japanese policy to gain insights into future Japanese policy. The second area focuses on the Communist threat, differing security paradigms of Pacific nations, and national security interests shared by the United States and Japan. This area concludes that nations with shared security interests can coexist and prosper despite having varying security needs. The third area builds on the first two by suggesting that NATO burden-sharing formulations are inappropriate to the Pacific region and the Base Force- reconstitution-deferred production approach to force development and sustainment should be revisited. It also suggest that the United states should adopt an evolutionary security policy framework with a greater economic focus to better support America's Pacific security interests.
Security Policy
Security interest
International security
Cite
Citations (0)
The United States’ strategy in the Asia-Pacific stands at a historic juncture. How the new Obama administration conceives and implements its Asia-Pacific policy during its first term of office will have major and enduring ramifications for America's future. The new administration must have a clear vision of its country's national security interests in the Asia-Pacific as well as a better appreciation of the evolving dynamics of the region. To this end, it should continue to underwrite its bilateral security commitments, albeit through a less threat-centric lens, and be more cognisant of the region's multilateral overtures by further anchoring US participation in regional multilateral institutions. This shift from a position of bilateral primacy to one of engaged bilateral and multilateral partnership—a ‘convergent security’ approach—is the best strategy for Washington to advance its strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific.
Position (finance)
Asia-Pacific
Security interest
Cite
Citations (19)
The basic thesis of this paper is that Southeast Asia will be the crucible and the testing ground for a new Euro-American partnership. Both the United States and the European Union have vital interests in Southeast Asia. These interests certainly involve economics. They definitely concern security issues. And, for both the United States and the European Union, though for similar reasons differently nuanced, these interests aspire to the realm of ideals and idealism, of norms and normativism.
Globalism
Realm
Crucible (geodemography)
Cite
Citations (0)
The volume edited by Ganesan and Amer is a welcome departure from the academic theoretical focus on the regionalist enterprise of ASEAN. As the aspirational goal of an ASEAN community becomes increasingly elusive - if not illusory - this book explains in real policy terms the challenge to the political efficacy of ASEAN's multilateral fora, constrained as they are by consensus, non-interference, and fiercely defended state sovereignty. In detailed and sharply etched studies of the key bilateral interests and issues at the state level, the authors demonstrate that rather than recourse to the multilateral diplomatic platform represented by ASEAN, the preferred national mechanisms for the critical areas of cooperation and conflict will continue to be bilateral and the practies of traditional statecraft. - Donald E. Weatherbee, Russell Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of South Carolina
Bilateralism
Cite
Citations (20)
The EU’s effective multilateralism doctrine is hardly a defining characteristic of the international system of today. While established multilateral structures are far from reflective of the realities of the twenty-first century, multilateral practices remain dominant in most parts of the world. Multilateralism, however, carries a different meaning to different actors. Emerging powers have become increasingly assertive in promoting their own multilateral approach and now set the pace in international affairs. The EU remains, nonetheless, well-placed to respond to this challenge through a revision of its multilateral agenda.
Pace
Cite
Citations (2)
Abstract : This monograph provides an analysis of the People's Republic of China's evaluation of multilateralism and its place in Chinese foreign relations in the Asia-Pacific region. In contrast to conventional scholarly wisdom, the author, Dr. Jing-dong Yuan, contends that China is not opposed to multilateral approaches. In fact, Dr. Yuan asserts that China has adopted an approach he dubs conditional multilateralism. According to Dr. Yuan, China now recognizes that multilateral engagement is unavoidable and indeed can be useful in advancing China's interests. China's embrace of multilateralism, however, varies depending upon the particular forum and specific issue. Furthermore, Dr. Yuan contends China remains leery of entering into arrangements that might constrain its independence and flexibility. This change in China's attitude toward multilateralism is a significant one that has important implications for U.S. national security strategy and for U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific. The Strategic Studies Institute is pleased to offer this study as a contribution to ongoing analyses and debates over the future roles China will play in the international security environment.
Asia-Pacific
Cite
Citations (17)
Has there been a new surge of American unilateralism? Why is the world fearful of a United States that goes it alone? What are the consequences, for both the United States and the world, of a unilateral America? This book seeks to answer these questions. Past discussions and debates among US contributors were sufficiently passionate as to suggest that a parallel investigation, this time by international scholars, about US approaches to multilateralism and unilateralism would prove illuminating.
Unilateralism
Cite
Citations (47)
This article poses the question of why, after having consistently pursued an isolationist strategy of avoiding security ties with partners other than the US, and having followed the US in opposing regional security multilateralism, did Japan suddenly reverse course and get out in front of the US with its first post-war regional security initiative. This article addresses this question by tracing the internal debates, policy process and motivations that drove Japan to reverse its position, a process that transformed Japan into the leading champion of regional security multilateralism in East Asia.
Cite
Citations (5)
Abstract Hendrik Spruyt fails in his contribution to address adequately the strategic rationale for Japanese multilateralism because the circumstances of Japanese‐American relations and the perspectives of the other major powers in Northeast Asia are not dealt with. The comprehensive Japan‐US relationship has been the strongest incentive for the vigour and direction of Japan's multilateral diplomacy, but at the same time this framework constitutes a considerable structural obstacle to its development. Japan's subordination to the US and the connected passivity of its foreign policy constrains Japan's will, ability and diplomatic leeway to carve out a leading role in multilateral diplomacy. US policy towards Japan's bid for permanent Security Council membership has been hypocritical, inconsistent and counterproductive. The US has to reconsider its understanding of multilateralism as a camouflaged allied burden‐sharing strategy because this will discredit Japan's multilateralism with China and Russia.
Subordination
Cite
Citations (4)
Under the transitional presidency of Donald Trump, the future relevance of the post-war American bilateral alliance network in the Indo-Pacific—also known as the 'hub-and-spokes' system—is becoming increasingly contentious. This chapter argues that while this network is still beneficial for the United States and its regional allies in realising their common security interests, it can be strengthened by the judicious application of minilateral security politics. The extent to which any minilateralism initiative reflects a coherent US and allied blueprint to supplement existing alliance missions and capabilities, however, remains uncertain. Indeed, the very essence of 'minilateral security' is unclear. To date, minilateral security initiatives have yielded mixed results due to differences among participant states about purpose and a relatively sporadic approach to managing advertised goals. After discussing the nature and rationales of minilateralism, the history of minilateral security's evolution in an Indo-Pacific context is reviewed. The intensifying debate over the advantages and drawbacks of minilateralism as an instrument of alliance politics is then discussed. The chapter concludes by observing that 'functional multilateralism' directed towards realising uncontroversial 'second-order' security objectives mostly unrelated to core state-centric questions of sovereignty, territorial claims and ideology has been successful in supplementing bilateral and multilateral security politics in the Indo-Pacific region.
Indo-Pacific
Cite
Citations (3)