Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Policy Political Geography Asia

111. Japan’s National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 and Its Implication to South Korean Security Policies

Author:
Young-June Park
Publication Date:
01-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
On December 17, 2010, the government of Japan updated its most strategically important document entitled “National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG), FY 2011-” following confirmation from both the Security Council and the Cabinet. The new defense plan released along with the “Mid-Term Defense Program for FY2011-2015” addresses the objectives and the methods of the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Moreover, the plan also outlines Japan’s future military strategies as well as the fundamental tenets of its defense policy. Whereas in the United States, the White House, Pentagon, and Joint Chiefs all release new guidelines each time a new administration comes to power, Japan does not have such a regular format for its defense plan. This makes the National Defense Program Guidelines a comprehensive strategic document that covers every aspect of Japan’s military defense. First introduced in 1976, the Guidelines has only been updated twice in 1995 and 2004. The NDPG in 1976 reflected Japan’s security and military strategy during the Cold War, while the 1995 and the 2004 guidelines reflected strategies for the post-Cold War era and the beginning of 21st century after 9/11, respectively. What then do these updated guidelines in 2010 signify? And in what context should this defense plan be seen? Firstly, the structural changes that have occurred in the security environment of East Asia should be taken into consideration. North Korea conducted nuclear tests twice in 2006 and 2009. In 2010, it displayed new levels of provocation by sinking the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan and shelling Yeonpyeong Island. These actions not only threaten the Korean Peninsula but also the entire region. Added to that, China surpassed Japan as the second largest economy after the United States and has become more assertive over maritime disputes with Japan. How all these military and economic changes are projected in the document deserves close analysis. Secondly, unlike previous NDPGs that were written during the long years under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the 2010 Guidelines are part of the first strategic document that reflects the strategic outlook and security approach of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Since the DPJ assumed power, it has long tried to differentiate itself from LDP in its decision making procedures and actual policies. Such tendencies are naturally reflected in its security policies as well. How do these guidelines differ from the NDPGs issued under the LDP? In short, the National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 is the best resource with which to understand how Japan perceives the changed security environment, and what strategic concepts and military capability it is preparing for in face of future security challenges.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Spending, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

112. SSR in the Republic of Moldova: Strengthening Oversight of the Security Sector

Author:
Erik Sportel(ed.) and Sami Faltas(ed.)
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Security Studies
Abstract:
Although a small country, Moldova is of great geostrategic importance. Sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, it borders both the former Soviet Union and the Euro-Atlantic Bloc. In the years after independence, Moldova was ambivalent about its foreign policy orientation. Situated on a geopolitical crossroads, Chisinau could not decide whether to deepen its relations with Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) or to follow a policy of Euro-Atlantic integration. In recent years, the country has clearly chosen the latter option, albeit with the reservation that integration into NATO is incompatible with Moldova's neutral status. First, Moldova pushed for the involvement of the European Union (EU) and the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in negotiations to find a settlement for the Transnistrian conflict. Second, Moldova intensified its co-operation with NATO within the PfP programme by agreeing upon an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) in 2006. By signing the IPAP, Moldova expressed its intention to move closer to Euro-Atlantic standards and institutions. Third, the EU-Moldova Action Plan was adopted in February 2005 in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Its aim is 'to encourage and support Moldova's objective of further integration into European economic and social structures'. Closer EU-Moldova relations are also evident in the EU's higher visibility in Moldova and in the Transnistrian conflict settlement process. In March 2005, the EU appointed a Special Representative to Moldova, and in October 2005, the EU established a border control mission on the frontier between Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM). At the same time, the European Commission opened a delegation office in Chisinau.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Ukraine, Asia, and Soviet Union

113. Deter and Assure: Charting a Course for America's Asian Alliances in a New Nuclear Age

Author:
Tim Sullivan
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
As home to a number of the world's most dynamic economies, two rising powers, and six nuclear states, Asia is a region of enormous strategic importance to the United States. For over six decades, America has functioned as the preeminent power in Asia, playing a vital role in providing security and ensuring a stable balance of power that has allowed the region's states to flourish politically and economically. The U.S. security framework in the region has rested historically upon a series of bilateral alliances and strategic partnerships. The arrangement has impressively stood the test of time despite concerns that the lack of an overarching, multilateral security architecture would lead to inefficiencies in the United States' pursuit of regional stability.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Emerging Markets, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States and Asia

114. New Foreign Policy Actors in China

Author:
Linda Jakobson and Dean Knox
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
In contemporary China a cacophony of voices urges decision makers to pursue a variety of foreign policies. The continuing pluralization of Chinese society and China's growing interdependence with the international order have made decision-making processes more complex. These changes, taking place at a time when China's cooperation is increasingly vital to the resolution of key global issues, present a challenge to foreign policy makers. Effective engagement of China in the international arena requires an understanding of the interplay within and between not only the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Chinese Government and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) but also new foreign policy actors on the margins of the traditional power structure. These new actors include resource companies, financial institutions, local governments, research organizations, the media and netizens.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and International Trade and Finance
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Australia/Pacific

115. The Chinese Defense Economy's Long March from Imitation to Innovation

Author:
Tai Ming Cheung
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, China's defense science, technology, and innovation (DSTI) system has been vigorously developing a comprehensive set of innovation capabilities that will eventually allow it to join the world's top tier of military technological powers. Ample access to financial, human, and research resources; strong political support; inflows of foreign technologies and know-how; and the introduction of advanced modes of governance, market competition, and management are producing significant progress, although from a low base. But long-term success is far from assured as daunting structural bottlenecks stand in the way, not the least of which is the struggle to overcome a long history of debilitating Socialist central planning.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Economics, Markets, Science and Technology, and Governance
Political Geography:
China and Asia

116. The Slow Death of Japanese Techno-Nationalism? Comparative Lessons for China's Future Defense Production

Author:
Christopher W. Hughes
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Japan's defense production model is often seen as a successful exemplar of "techno-nationalism," especially in the integration of the civilian and military sectors. Hence, Japan's model has been considered as offering possible lessons for China to emulate in the reform of its own defense industry. But Japan's defense production model, despite arguable past successes, is now experiencing what is often referred to by Japanese policymakers and industrialists as a "slow death" as its structural development limitations have been increasingly revealed over the past two decades. Japan's defense production model is encountering three major structural limitations: 1. Stagnation in defense budgets and long-term military demand.2. Flawed and failing procurement practices.3. Obstacles to expanded and more diverse international collaboration.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Japan, China, and Asia

117. Defense Innovation and Industrialization in South Korea

Author:
Chung-in Moon and Jae-Ok Paek
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
South Korea's defense industrial transformation has been impressive by any standard. It was able to satisfy most of its basic weapons needs within a decade after launching its defense industry. Since the late 1990s, South Korea has been elevated from a third-tier arms producer to the second tier by moving from the stage of imitation and assembly to that of creative imitation and indigenization. It now competes with major arms-supplying countries. In addition, the South Korean defense industry has made remarkable progress in RMA-related areas mostly involving command, control, communication, intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance. In this policy brief, we first assess South Korea's defense industrial performance by examining the patterns of defense acquisition, rate of localization of defense materiel, and defense exports. We then briefly analyze the evolutionary dynamics of defense industrial upgrades in selected sectors by tracing the stages of innovation. We also delineate a set of institutional and policy arrangements that have contributed to this impressive transformation.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Economics
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

118. North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Complex

Author:
Siegfried S. Hecker
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Security and Cooperation
Abstract:
On November 12, during my most recent visit to the Yongbyon Nuclear Complex with Stanford University colleagues John W. Lewis and Robert Carlin, we were shown a 25 to 30 megawatt-electric (MWe) experimental light-water reactor (LWR) in the early stages of construction. It is North Korea's first attempt at LWR technology and we were told it is proceeding with strictly indigenous resources and talent. The target date for operation was said to be 2012, which appears much too optimistic.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Energy Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Asia and North Korea

119. On the Rocks: Korea and Japan Divided over the Dokdo Issue

Author:
D. Bong Youngshik
Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
No serious observer of postwar relations between South Korea and Japan doubts that there is a bilateral issue between the two nations that is more persistent and volatile than their feud over the sovereign status of the two minuscule islets of Dokdo. This commentary examines the history of disputes over Dokdo, and attempts to argue that the starting point for a solution lies in the pragmatic and prudent approach, not in assertive diplomacy based on nationalistic sentiments. Since the end of World War II, Dokdo has been under the effective administrative control of the South Korean government. The Japanese government has protested at various official levels since then, arguing that the islets, which it calls Takeshima, belong to Japan in accordance with historical evidence and international law. The diplomatic feud over the territory did not flare up during the Cold War, because both countries involved in the controversy made security cooperation against the communist threat in Northeast Asia their top priority. It was only after concerns over the external regional security environment were lifted with the end of the Cold War that Japan began to fortify its claims to Dokdo in a far more assertive and diversified manner. South Korea responded to this change by making periodic departures from its traditional line of defense of “quiet diplomacy”—that is, taking the view that because its sovereignty over the islets is indisputable and its control over them remains complete, South Korea has no strategic interests in aggressively and emotionally reacting to Japan’s escalatory territorial policy. To do so would only reinforce Japan’s claim that there does exist an unresolved territorial issue between the two countries and the sovereign status of Dokdo is undetermined, when in fact South Korea’s position is the opposite.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, and South Korea

120. A Complex Strategy to Overcome the Yeonpyeong Incident

Author:
Young-Sun Ha
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Since North Korea’s deadly artillery barrage on Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea has been stepping up efforts in its defense posture and international cooperation. In preparing against any further provocation from the North, Seoul has been reinforcing forces on the island, strengthening defense and deterrence capabilities, and drastically increasing its defense budget. Somewhat belatedly, it has also been taking up actions to reexamine the strategies of the ROK-U.S. military alliance, demanding cooperation from China and Russia while maintaining the traditional trilateral cooperation with the United States and Japan. Of course, analyzing the causes of the weak response to the shelling and preparing to prevent further provocations are undoubtedly important. However, reading the bigger picture and formulating key strategies for the future is a far more critical task. The Kim Jong-il/Kim Jong-un leadership in November 2010 conducted two consecutive moves—revealing its uranium enrichment facilities and launching an artillery strike on Yeonpyeong Island. Understanding the situation of the whole East Asian region, while at the same time anticipating Pyongyang’s strategies and taking preemptive actions will be the main challenges ahead for Seoul. Firstly, it is important to understand the range of North Korea’s strategic options from aggressive diplomacy to peaceful diplomacy. The Korean Peninsula went through the Korean War in 1950 and following of the ceasefire, both Koreas were stuck between ‘hot war’ and ‘cold war.’ Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has passed the stage of ‘cold peace’ and moved towards a ‘hot peace.’ In spite of this global shift, North Korea has been frequently using combinations of ‘cold war,’ ‘hot war,’ ‘cold peace,’ and ‘hot peace’ on the international strategic chessboard. For example, during the Cold War period North Korea provoked the South in a number of cases: Rangoon bombing (1983), bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 (1987), attempted Blue House raid (1968), North Korean infiltration in the Uljin and Samcheok areas (1968). Even in the post-Cold War period, nuclear tests, naval battles in the Yellow Sea, the sinking of Cheonan naval ship and the shelling on Yeonpyeong Island ensued. At the same time, Pyongyang has been aggressively demanding for a peace agreement to this day. The possibility for limited warfare on the Korean Peninsula came dangerously close with the recent Yeonpyeong shelling, more so than the last North Korean provocation, the sinking of the Cheonan. As the pendulum of war and peace on the Korean Peninsula swung from the ‘cold war’ to ‘hot war,’ greater chaos arise. It is expected that the Kim Jong-il/Kim Jong-un regime will try to maximize the use of this pendulum of peace and war in order to strengthen Kim Jong-un’s weak power base. In spite of the dangers, merely worrying about the possibility of war is not going to help. Rather, we have to understand precisely why the North has raised the bar of aggression from acts of terrorism to that of a direct artillery attack on South Korean territory. It is likely that the North would pursue a ‘cold peace’ offensive to utilize the amplitude of the pendulum. A complex picture emerges when looking back on the recent comments made by top officials from North Korea, the United States, and China. Seoul and Washington have called for Pyongyang to engage in measures for active denuclearization and reengagement in inter-Korean relations as preconditions for resuming the Six-Party Talks. North Korea on the other hand has taken precisely the opposite measures. To read what the North Korean regime has in mind we have to think of the situation not as a motionless snapshot but as a moving footage. Furthermore, South Korea must do more than just respond to North Korea’s actions. Instead it should focus on making strategically preemptive moves. For this, it is necessary to examine why the North Korean regime expanded the pendulum’s amplitude and find measures to make the leadership pursue a survival strategy that does not include huddling around nuclear weapons.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Alliance, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America