Viewing Japan's security policy through the lens of "Realism"
Viewing Japan's security policy
through the lens of "Realism" allows us to gain a deeper
understanding of the rationale behind the drafting of its defense white paper (Defense
of Japan).
In international relations theory,
realism posits that the world lacks a "central government" to protect
anyone. Therefore, every nation must rely on itself (self-help) and
tends to view the military movements of its neighbors with suspicion as
potential threats. However, looking closely at the contents of the 2013 white
paper reveals contradictory strategies and explanations that could exacerbate
instability in East Asia.
1. North Korea: A Genuine Threat or an Overestimation for Preparedness?
Japan's white paper targets North
Korea under the leadership of Kim Jong-un (who was then newly in power),
pointing out that provocative actions—such as long-range missile tests and
nuclear trials—constitute direct threats. Simultaneously, however, parts of the
content contradict one another as follows:
- Internal Motivation vs. External Threat: Japan acknowledges that North Korea’s actions were
driven by "domestic politics" to legitimize its new leader and
distract from economic woes, rather than a direct preparation for an
invasion of Japan.
- Overestimation of Capabilities: The white paper states that the Taepodong-2 and
Musudan missiles have ranges of thousands of kilometers. In reality, these
weapons had not undergone thorough testing to guarantee their operational
viability. Even the three nuclear tests (up to 2013) were confined to
laboratory stages, and U.S. intelligence had found no evidence that North
Korea could miniaturize nuclear warheads to fit onto missiles.
Realist Perspective: Japan chose to assess North Korea's capabilities using a
"worst-case scenario" to justify its preemptive defense preparations.
However, over-preparedness inevitably breeds mutual suspicion, projecting
anxiety back onto North Korea.
2. Confronting China: An Endless Cycle of Suspicion
Looking at China, Japan expressed
deep concern over its rapidly increasing military budget, rapid modernization,
and lack of data transparency. However, taking an alternative perspective using
the 2011 defense budget figures provided in the white paper reveals a different
picture of the balance of power:
|
Country |
2011 Defense Budget (USD) |
Perspective on Military Might |
|
United
States |
~678
Billion |
Highest
in the world, holds absolute military superiority over all nations. |
|
China |
~140
Billion |
Growing
rapidly (3.51 times over 10 years) but still far behind the U.S. |
|
Japan |
~43
Billion |
Key
ally of the United States in the region. |
When China looks at this picture, it
does not see itself as the aggressor. Instead, China sees itself being
surrounded by the US-Japan military alliance, whose combined budget and
military might dwarf China's by several folds.
The Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands Dispute
The white paper reports that Chinese
warships entered the waters more frequently after September 2012. Yet, looking
at the deeper context, this tension was triggered by Japan's more frequent and
explicit assertions of ownership. Consequently, China deployed its warships to
counter and safeguard its own claims. This reflects that the dispute is an
issue of competing claims, and China's reactions were provoked by Japan's
actions.
3. The Security Dilemma
This is the core concept of Realism
that best explains this entire phenomenon. When every nation invokes
"self-defense" to stockpile weapons and expand its military forces,
competitors naturally feel insecure and feel compelled to stockpile arms in
return.
- Japan increases its military strength to deter China
and North Korea.
- China and North Korea view the US-Japan alliance as a
threat to them, thereby accelerating their own weapon development.
- The result is that the more everyone tries to make
themselves secure, the more the region becomes fraught with risk and
instability.
4.
The US-Japan Alliance: A Double-Edged Sword Expanding Risk
The white paper lauds the Japan-US
Security Treaty as a cornerstone sustaining the region. Analytically, however,
this strategy bears two major consequences:
- Expansion of Japan's Military Role: Moving away from its original focus on territorial
self-defense (under the pacifist constitution), Japan has begun utilizing
the pretext of maintaining "Asia-Pacific regional security" to
boost its combat capabilities and expand its operational scope.
- Risk of Entrapment:
With numerous US military bases stationed in Japan, and Japan envisioning
a scenario where it acts as the "first line of defense" against
enemies before US reinforcements arrive, it conversely means Japan has
bound its fate to US interests and security. Should the US conflict with
other superpowers (such as China or Russia), Japan will inevitably be
dragged into the war.
Conclusion: The Way Forward Offered by Realist Theory
Although realism appears pessimistic
and heavily focused on military power, it also addresses "rational
deterrence" and restraint. This mirrors the Cold War era, where the US
and the Soviet Union harbored deep mutual suspicions but exercised extreme
caution not to trigger a major war, knowing it would result in mutual
destruction.
Furthermore, in the real world,
international relations are not confined strictly to military matters (the
security dimension) but also encompass an "economic dimension"
where Japan, China, and the US are heavily interdependent. Relationships in
East Asia are thus complex and multifaceted, viewed by other international
relations theories as a state of being "both cooperative trading
partners and conflicting competitors" simultaneously, rather than
solely a preparation for war.
Chanchai Kumpunya
(ชาญชัย คุ้มปัญญา)
Latest update 4 July 2026
Editorial Note: This article is an expanded English adaptation of the author's original column published in Thai Post Newspaper.
Comments
Post a Comment