The Evolution of the US-Japan Alliance

The Eagle and the Chrysanthemum

Matteo Dian

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781843347668
• eBook ISBN: 9781780634470
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The US-Japan alliance has contributed significantly towards the development of the Japanese security strategy. The Evolution of the US-Japan Alliance explores developments in the alliance between the US and Japan and analyzes the transformation of the Japanese security strategy from 1960 to 2013. It also describes the rise and the decline of Japanese pacifism and of the Yoshida Doctrine, the post war security strategy. Moreover, this book highlights how the end of the Cold War forced Japan to rethink its security strategy and post war pacifism. Japan has abandoned its identity of "peaceful nation, turning itself into a "normal national, drawing closer to the United States. - Provides readers with a theoretical framework through which they can make sense of the evolutions of the US-Japan alliance and the evolution of the Japanese security strategy throughout post war history - Provides a comprehensive overview of the shifts in the Japanese security strategies and in the American foreign and security policies in the Asia Pacific region - Makes extensive use of primary sources - Addresses main debates on security alliances and security strategies - Incorporates the latest events such as the American Pivot to Asia

1

Asymmetric alliances in theory

Abstract:

The first chapter introduces the theoretical framework of the book. First, it introduces how different traditions in international relations theory, such as realism, rationalism and constructivism, explain the origin, the evolution and the possible demise of security alliances. Second, it puts forward an analytical framework aimed at analysing the evolution of asymmetric security alliances based on four main analytic dimensions: political cooperation, technological and military cooperation, diplomatic alignment and war cooperation. Finally, it proposes new hypotheses aimed at evaluating the evolution of asymmetric alliances.

Key words

realism; constructivism; balance of power; commitment; technology; diplomacy; alliances; international relations theory

Introduction

Contemporary international order is mainly defined by two realities, the political, economic and military primate of the United States, and the ‘power shift’ towards East Asia. The debate over the nature of the present order is inevitably related to a wider discussion about its durability and its stability over the longer term. Almost all the scenarios relevant to a possible US relative decline are associated with the ‘power shift’ towards Asia (Chan, 2004; MacDonald and Parent, 2011; Taliaferro, 2001) This region is marked, at the same time, by the highest rate of economic growth and the most intense rise of military capabilities. The vertiginous growth of military hardware in the area, the significance of a number of unsettled disputes and historical enmities between major powers make the region ‘ripe for rivalry’ (Friedberg, 1994).

One of the key elements of stability for this fragile equilibrium is the enduring presence of the United States, which is connected to a number of relevant actors in the area through a ‘hub and spoke’ network of asymmetric alliances (Calder, 2004). The hub and spoke system allowed the United States to be more than a relevant extra regional actor; in fact, it allowed it to be the central force in the constitution of regional stability and order. The US presence in the region, as well as the evolving interaction with its allies, has represented a major determinant of the patterns of equilibrium for regional security order; moreover, it is likely that this will continue to be the case.

The cohesion of alliances and the clarity of commitments to them are major sources of stability. On the contrary, uncoordinated pacts are likely to destabilise the international system, to foster arms races and to make the escalation of conflicts more likely (Christensen, 2011). Consequently, the future of the security order of East Asia is related to the durability and the evolution of hub and spoke asymmetric alliances that connect the United States with its partners in the area. Indeed, both the Cold War and post Cold War history testify to the fact that, when alliances constituting the San Francisco system were in doubt, the stability of the region was brought into question and relevant regional crises emerged (as exemplified by Taiwan in 1954 and 1995).

As Henry Kissinger famously stated, the US presence in East Asia and particularly in Japan, represented the ‘cork in the bottle’ that prevented the re-emergence of great power rivalry degenerating into open conflict (Kissinger, 1982). Apart from shielding allied countries such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea from external threats, the network of asymmetric alliances stabilised the region and favoured integration of these countries in the US-led system (Ikenberry, 2005).

The role and the scope of hub and spoke relationships have fundamentally evolved since the end of the Cold War. The rise of China and the recent American pivot to Asia fundamentally altered the role and behaviour of the main Asian actors. On the one hand, the military rise of China represents a potential threat to Asian neighbours and a fundamental challenge to American primacy. On the other hand, China’s economic ascendency represents a powerful magnet for economic and commercial development of the region. The Obama administration responded by trying to turn its Asian partners into local security providers and reaffirming the centrality of the region in American global strategy.

Equilibrium in the Asia Pacific region will not however be determined solely by the bilateral relationship between the United States and China. On the contrary, the role of other middle powers such as Japan will have a fundamental impact on the future of the region. Whether Japan will remain a faithful ally of the United States and the main hub for American military power in the region, or find a compromise with Beijing in an attempt to shape an alternative order, will determine the balance of power in the region and will fundamentally shape the nature of the future global order. Consequently, a theoretical and empirical investigation of hub and spoke asymmetric alliances in East Asia, and particularly of the US–Japan alliance as a cornerstone of the US presence in the region, is definitively a privileged point of observation from which to shed light on developing a security equilibrium in East Asia. The question of ‘how asymmetric alliances evolve’ and what constitutes the main determinants of their evolution is, indeed, central to understanding the dynamic of the region and the prospects of stability for the whole system.

Therefore, this book will analyse the evolution of the US–Japan alliance since the signing of the Treaty of Mutual Security between Japan and the United States in 1960. Moreover, it will use the US–Japan alliance as a fundamental test case to investigate how ‘asymmetric alliances’ evolve and to analyse what variables are involved in terms of influence, burden sharing, diplomatic alignments and military cooperation.

Security alliances in international relations theory

This research will be based on a few theoretical stepping stones. First, I will present a theoretical framework based on the concept of ‘asymmetric alliance’ that will help theoretically elucidate the evolution of the US–Japan alliance. The concept of asymmetric alliance defining a peculiar pattern of interaction helps delineate the theoretical and empirical horizon of the analysis more effectively. In the following chapters I will analyse the evolution of the alliance since its creation to the present day, highlighting how the proposed theoretical framework and the different explanatory factors considered in this book contribute to shedding light on the evolution of the security relationship between Washington and Tokyo, and how Japanese and American security policies evolved during the postwar era.

Before introducing the proposed theoretical framework, we should define the features of an asymmetric alliance. Military alliances are not only defined by the relative size of allies or their relative military contribution. The relation of (a)symmetry is not defined by the bilateral relationship between allies, or by their relative power or size, but by the triangular context of relations between allies and adversaries (Andreatta, 1997). Formalizing this kind of reasoning in a model, we can assume the existence of a universe constituted by three states (A, B and C); C represents a threat to the security of A and B, A and B will ally in order to face the threat constituted by C. The alliance can be defined as asymmetric, when A owns the necessary capabilities to face C even without the cooperation of B, while B is not able to face C alone (A > C > B). The alliance is asymmetrical when one state is necessary and sufficient to face the external threat alone, while the other(s) are neither necessary nor sufficient. This condition of asymmetry generates a different set of preferences, similar to a suasion game (CC, CD, DC, DD) for the major ally and similar to the prisoner’s dilemma (DC, CC, DD, CD) for junior partners.

Finally, this way of conceptualising asymmetry identifies the presence of a necessary and sufficient ally, able to face the external threat, while the other members are neither necessary nor sufficient.

The second fundamental stepping stone for research is derived from different theoretical approaches present in international relations (IR) theory, presenting several hypotheses capable of describing the evolution of the alliance and the behaviour of allied states. Various scholarly traditions have stressed different rationales for the origins of alliances and their persistence. The first attempt to theorise the phenomenon of security alliances was made by classical realists. Classical realists generally considered alliances to be a manifestation of the balance of power (Morgenthau, 1959). As Morgenthau (1948, p. 184) argued in Politics Among Nations, ‘The historically most important manifestation of the balance of power is to be found in the relations between one nation or alliance and another alliance.’

Structural realism, and particularly the general theory proposed by Kenneth Waltz, represented a step forward in theorising the role of alliances. Waltzian theory identifies the distribution of capabilities in the system as the crucial variable for the origin and collapse of alliances. According to Waltz, alliances are a by-product of structural factors (Waltz, 1979). They play a major role and represent one of the main strategies available to a state to face systemic imbalance. The first is ‘internal balancing’ (i.e., a military build-up). The second is ‘external balancing’ through the formation of alignments or alliances. This theory suggests that states tend to ally with the weaker coalition in order to re-equilibrate power imbalances in the system. According to this theory a major systemic change, such as the collapse of a superpower, would generate a structural tendency toward equilibrium. Over the longer term, it would lead to balancing behaviours against the remaining superpower. Eventually this would determine the collapse of the existing alliances.

Another relevant step in the theorisation of security alliances is represented by the balance of threat theory formulated by Stephen Walt (Walt, 1987). Walt argues that states ally to balance against threats rather than against power alone. Although the distribution of power is an extremely important factor, the level of threat is also affected by geographic proximity, offensive capabilities and aggressive intentions (Walt, 1997). The greater the threat posed by a state, the greater will be the tendency for others to align against it.

A valid theoretical alternative is represented by the securitisation approach proposed by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever and the Copenhagen school approach to security studies. According to them, the perception of threat should be described as a process of securitisation that determines the perception of a different image of a third party and leads to the recognition of another actor as a menace to security. The Copenhagen School defines the process of securitisation as an act ‘through which an inter-subjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent o...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• List of figures and tables
• List of acronyms
• Acknowledgements
• About the author
• Preface
• Timeline of events
• 1. Asymmetric alliances in theory
• 2. From creation of the alliance to the Nixon Doctrine (1960–9)
• 3. The Pacific alliance during détente (1969–78)
• 4. Renewal of the alliance and normalisation of Japan (1997–2008)
• 5. The alliance and the American pivot to Asia (2009–2013)
• 6. Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index