Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Asia

221. 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, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
Japan and Asia

222. Troubled Waters? Seeking a New Maritime Order in East Asia

Author:
Min Gyo Koo
Publication Date:
08-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Without a doubt, the most heated and persistent maritime disputes in the world are in the East Asia region. The vast bodies of water included in this region are the Northwest Pacific, the East Sea, the West Sea, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea. The diplomatic spat in the fall of 2010 between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea was a strong indication that any mishandling of maritime issues can disrupt the subtle balance of power and interests in the region. Equally problematic are the disputes in the South China Sea, where China’s growing assertiveness has provoked concern among not only its Southeast Asian neighbors but also with the United States. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the main provider of maritime security in the East Asia region but now faces the challenge of a rising China. In May 2011, a Chinese patrol boat cut the cable of a Vietnamese petroleum and gas probe vessel in the South China Sea. From this incident, tensions escalated to the brink of armed conflict. As countries in the region participate in tit-for-tat military exercises, the atmosphere has become worse. Under such conditions, many considered that the South China Sea issue, tangled with conflicts between China and ASEAN and the United States could flare up significantly. However at the 18th ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) held from July 22-23 2011 a new perspective developed as China stated that “the importance of the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is clear and all countries should be beneficiaries of such freedom.” Furthermore, during the China-ASEAN ministerial of the 2011 ARF Beijing stepped back by adopting the guidelines for the implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which was agreed upon in 2002. Washington welcomed this move as it suggested an effort to decrease tensions with respect to the South China Sea. This is in stark contrast to the 2010 ARF meeting where confrontations arose between the United States and China with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating “a peaceful resolution of the South China Sea conflict directly relates to U.S. national interest.” From such developments, one can assess that the ARF has made important progress with respect to the South China Sea issue. However, the 2002 Declaration of Conduct that establishes the principle for peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) lacks binding capacities and the newly adopted guidelines are mostly declaratory and lack specific details. Thus it would be too soon to consider the 2011 ARF meeting as a success with respect to the South China Sea dispute. Considering that China tends to use such multilateral channels as a ground for making peace but then is more forceful in its bilateral relations, the outcome of the recent ARF meeting could come to have less significance than expected.
Topic:
Security, International Law, Maritime Commerce, and Maritime
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South China Sea, and ASEAN

223. 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

224. Nepal: Peace and Justice

Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Failure to address the systematic crimes committed during Nepal's ten-year civil war is threatening the peace process. There has been not a single prosecution in civilian courts for any abuses. The cultures of impunity that enabled the crimes in the first place have remained intact, further increasing public distrust and incentives to resort to violence. The immediate priorities should be prosecutions of the most serious crimes, investigation of disappearances and action to vet state and Maoist security force members.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Crime, Human Rights, Fragile/Failed State, and Governance
Political Geography:
Asia and Nepal

225. 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

226. Report on Regional Consultation on The Responsibility to Protect

Publication Date:
04-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS)
Abstract:
Five years have passed since the signing of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, when United Nations (UN) member states agreed to the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). Contained in paragraph 138 of the World Summit Outcome Document is a commitment by states to prevent four specific types of mass atrocities – ethnic cleansing, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It was a significant commitment outlining sovereignty as responsibility. ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) member states were part of this historic signing, recalling incidents of mass atrocities in their own region, such as in Cambodia and East Timor. Since the 2005 World Summit, there have been numerous regional developments, within Southeast Asia, in the areas of conflict prevention, early warning mechanisms and protection frameworks for its populations, such as the recent establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC). However, there has been little discussion on what traction exists and how to operationalise RtoP in the region. In addition, there have been few avenues in Southeast Asia, for policymakers, civil society members, academics and the media to collectively discuss how RtoP is viewed in the region, how it can be better promoted and whether there are any lessons to be learned from past experiences in the region.
Topic:
Security, Civil Society, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Asia

227. The Political Future of Afghanistan

Author:
Radha Kumar, Fabrice Pothier, and Waliullah Rahmani
Publication Date:
10-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
Since the Obama administration set 2011 as the date for withdrawal from Afghanistan, speculation has been rife on whether and how the deadline will be met. Although this date is actually fuzzy – it is doubtful whether 2011 will see even the beginning of an American drawdown – it has focused attention on the critical issues for stabilisation in Afghanistan that have remained unaddressed over the past nine years.
Topic:
Security, Islam, War, Armed Struggle, and Insurgency
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and Asia

228. The geopolitics of Asia – What role for the European Union?

Author:
Fraser Cameron
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Politics
Institution:
Palgrave Macmillan
Abstract:
This article reviews the European Union's policy towards Asia since 2001, when an ambitious Communication from the European Commission suggested that the EU should play a political and security role in the region commensurate with its economic strength. After assessing a number of political and security issues in Asia, the article concludes that the EU has had little or no impact on the major geopolitical issues but that it is making some impact on security issues of lesser importance. The article also touches on integration as a contribution to security. It reviews the limited progress in Asian integration and suggests that the basic criteria for integration are missing in Asia. Some aspects of the EU model, however, might be useful for Asian countries wishing to move forward towards closer integration.
Topic:
Security and Politics
Political Geography:
Europe and Asia

229. Powerplay: Origins of the U.S. Alliance System in Asia

Author:
Victor D. Cha
Publication Date:
01-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Security
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
In East Asia the United States cultivated a "hub and spokes" system of discrete, exclusive alliances with the Republic of Korea, the Republic of China, and Japan, a system that was distinct from the multilateral security alliances it preferred in Europe. Bilateralism emerged in East Asia as the dominant security structure because of the "powerplay" rationale behind U.S. postwar planning in the region. "Powerplay" refers to the construction of an asymmetric alliance designed to exert maximum control over the smaller ally's actions. The United States created a series of bilateral alliances in East Asia to contain the Soviet threat, but a congruent rationale was to constrain "rogue allies"- that is, rabidly anticommunist dictators who might start wars for reasons of domestic legitimacy and entrap the United States in an unwanted larger war. Underscoring the U.S. desire to avoid such an outcome was a belief in the domino theory, which held that the fall of one small country in Asia could trigger a chain of countries falling to communism. The administrations of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower calculated that they could best restrain East Asia's pro-West dictators through tight bilateral alliances rather than through a regionwide multilateral mechanism. East Asia's security bilateralism today is therefore a historical artifact of this choice.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Europe, and Asia

230. Steps Towards Peace: Putting Kashmiris First

Publication Date:
06-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
India and Pakistan have consistently subjected Kashmiri interests to their own national security agendas and silenced calls for greater autonomy. With the start of their composite dialogue – comprehensive negotiations to resolve all contentious bilateral issues, including Kashmir, launched in February 2004 – both appeared willing to allow more interaction across the Line of Control (LOC) but failed to engage Kashmiris in the process. As a result, they did not take full advantage of opportunities to enhance cross-LOC cooperation by identifying the most appropriate Kashmir-specific confidence-building measures (CBMs), and bureaucratic resistance in both capitals resulted in uneven implementation of even those that had been agreed. India has suspended the composite dialogue since the November 2008 Mumbai attacks by Pakistan based militants, but neither New Delhi nor Islamabad has backtracked on these CBMs. Nevertheless, the CBM process will only achieve major results if the two sides devolve authority to Kashmir's elected representatives and take other vital steps to win over its alienated public.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Islam, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
Pakistan, India, and Asia