Reply to Midford:

My previous post was not all over the map, as it focused on criticising some points made by Midford (and
others) related to the three issues of the rise of China, the US-Japan alliance and NPT. Midford criticised my post in the same manner anyway.

I did not say 'realism and the military balance of power are out of date' and my position is not contradictory. I understand that, although neorealism can be out of date in many aspects if it is applied to the European Union, for example, it could still be relevant in the Far East to some extent, including the existence of the US-Japan alliance. It is also important, however, to consider the international relations of East Asia from an economic perspective.

As for Midford's reference to the Sino-Japanese alliance, I still have to say that it is unrealistic and most Japanese and Chinese would consider it outrageous. Although his alliance is 'theoretically'
possible, it is essentially 'kijou no kuuron'. Although Midford mentions that it was uncertain if the US-Japan alliance would work at the time of its inception, this alliance is very different from the (unrealistic) Sino-Japanese alliance, so he cannot compare them.

By saying 'serious consequences' in the case of the termination of the US-Japan alliance, I mean a likely amendment to the Constitution (especially the abolition of Article 9) and rearmament (creation of offensive forces instead of the maintenance of self-desense forces only). This is also very likely to create a negative impact on the international relations of East Asia. For example, China is likely to respond to this situation by increasing its military forces to a vast extent and acquire a more aggressive stance towards Japan. Korea and other East Asian countries will also criticise Japan's militarisation and respond to this situation negatively. These countries have not forgotten the atrocities Japan inflicted on them during the second Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War. The termination of the US-Japan alliance is very likely to undermine the stability and security in East Asia.

I did not say 'describing possible alternatives for Japan is crude or simplistic. I called 'crude' or 'simplistic' some grand theories like Paul Kennedy's or some historical analogies. Midford confuses what I said at one point with another and criticises me for what I did not say without reading my post carefully. In addition, not all of what I said was about Midford's post.

As for the 'confidence' issue, I suggest that Midford read some works (especially non-academic) written by right-wing Japanese about Japan's foreign policy, economy, etc. and he would understand that his arguments are quite similar to theirs. I understand that Midford emphasises the importance of public opinion for Japan's foreign policy, so he should understand what reaction the Japanese government would get from the Japanese public if the government implements such foreign (security) policies that could be only possible with the confidence he is talking about. In addition, it is not necessary the issue of confidence but that of competence whether Japan can assert itself and demonstrate a leadership in the international politics. Given the nature of education which does not promote discussion or leadership skills and the existence of language barriers, Japanese individual politicians are likely to find it difficult to be assertive or influential at international venues.

Agency and ideas matter in addition to institutions.
However, in the case of the US-Japan alliance, institutional constraint is much greater than Midford recognises. The US-Japan alliance has been an essential part of the international security relations of East Asia. We need to identify the strong incentives for political actors too if we want to argue the possibility of dismantling this alliance. I do not think either the US or Japan has strong incentives to dismantle it. In addition, public opinion is likely to create another possible barrier to the termination of the US-Japan alliance. Midford asks 'Does the cost of dismantlement make dismantlement not worth the effort'
but who wants to make this effort? Do many Japanese (and Americans) want to make this effort?

I said that Japan would not be able to avoid the international outcry if it goes for a nuclear option.
In addition, Midford says 'the only plausible reason for amending Article 9 is sending the SDF overseas for combat operations'. However, it is most likely that Article 9 will also be amended if the US-Japan alliance is terminated, as Japan would have to defend itself without US protection and it would be more difficult to justify the existence of Article 9.

Of course, no Japanese right-wing extremists are proposing a Sino-Japanese alliance. The proposal which I mentioned was that of nuclear Japan.

Finally, although Midford says 'there is no reason for believing that the US alliance serves as a real cap in the bottle holding back a resurgence of Japanese militarism', the end of the alliance is likely to strengthen hawkish opinions in Japan at least, if not necessarily leading to the resurgence of Japanese militarism. It is also important to understand that, during the LDP regime, Japanese right-wing extremists were not necessarily feeble but had certain influence by maintaining connections with some LDP politicians.
It is also a taboo and dangerous in Japan to criticise or ridicule the Imperial family in public (as on TV), as it is quite likely that one will be attacked by these right-wing extremists (An assassination attempt of Nagasaki mayor in 1990 for his claim of Emperor's responsibility during WWII is a good example. LDP was also criticising the mayor's claim). This is a very different situation from, say, Britain.

Hiro Watanabe

*******************************************************
***********************
Dr. Hiroaki Richard Watanabe, D.Phil. Oxford Lecturer, School of East Asian Studies, University of Sheffield

http://www.shef.ac.uk/seas/staff/japanese/watanabe.html
http://www.wreac.org/people/WREAC-People/Core-Researche
rs/Watanabe%2C-Hiroaki-Richard/details