Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Japan

111. Japan-ROK Security Relations: An American Perspective

Author:
Michael J. Green
Publication Date:
03-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
This monograph explores contemporary Japan-ROK security relations from the perspective of U.S. strategic interests in Asia. Japan and the Republic of Korea have been aligned but not allied since the beginning of the Cold War, and the United States has long been frustrated in its desire to strengthen the Japan-ROK leg of its network of bilateral alliances in Asia. The United States abandoned the goal of encouraging a formal U.S.-Japan-ROK alliance early on in the Cold War, and in the current strategic environment a trilateral alliance would probably be counterproductive. At the same time, however, the fluidity of East Asian security relations today has heightened the dangers of leaving the Japan-ROK security relationship in an ambiguous state. Closer Japan-ROK security cooperation will enhance U.S. efforts to maintain forward presence, manage diplomacy and potential crises on the Korean Peninsula, and integrate China as a cooperative partner in the region. In contrast, distant Japan-ROK relations would complicate all of these U.S. objectives. Hostile Japan-ROK relations, particularly in the context of Korean reunification, would have a spillover effect on Sino-U.S. relations and could return the region to the great-power rivalry of the last century.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, and Korea

112. Asian Alliances and American Politics

Author:
Michael H. Armacost
Publication Date:
02-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
The domestic politics of our Asian alliances is like the story of the dog that didn't bark. Though our defense ties with Japan and Korea were forged in the Cold War, nearly ten years after the Berlin Wall came down, few voices are being raised to amend, let alone terminate, either the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with Japan or the U.S.-Korea Mutual Defense Treaty. Although large numbers of U.S. troops remain in both countries, congressional criticisms of allied “free riding” are rarely heard. Our alliances with Japan and Korea provoke little discernible opposition from the Congress, the press, or the general public. Polling data suggests that public support for the alliances and for forward deployments in both countries remains high. And no prominent leaders of the Congress are threatening to link security concerns to outstanding economic issues with the Japanese or South Koreans—a tactic frequently utilized a decade ago.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Asia, and Korea

113. U.S. Policy Toward North Korea: A Second Look

Author:
Michael J. Green, James T. Laney, and Morton I. Abramowitz
Publication Date:
07-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
In May, former Secretary of Defense William Perry traveled to North Korea with a comprehensive proposal to increase outside assistance for its isolated and declining Stalinist regime in exchange for steps by the North to reduce its threatening military posture. The Perry proposal was designed to test North Korea's intentions not only to abide by the 1994 Agreed Framework, which aimed to cap Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, but also to stop further missile tests and military provocations. It is unlikely that North Korea will respond positively. The regime has survived for five decades only by maintaining a belligerent stance. Pyongyang has rebuffed South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's unprecedented efforts to improve North-South relations and has continued to produce military tensions, even in the wake of the Perry visit. But it is too soon to give up on a comprehensive package to reduce tensions with North Korea. Despite the illusion of self-sufficiency, or juche, the North is increasingly dependent on outside help to sustain itself. It is possible that over time Pyongyang will find no alternative to greater interaction with the outside world. Barring an increase in threatening North Korean actions, the United States should keep the Perry proposal on the table and continue to support Kim Dae Jung's policy of engagement. A second Taepodong missile test by North Korea would not violate any existing North Korean commitments, but it would significantly change the situation in Northeast Asia. We should make every effort to deter a launch, but if one takes place, the United States, Japan, and South Korea will have to examine ways to enhance defense against a different North Korean threat. South Korea should suspend new investment in North Korea and Japan should impose new sanctions and consider restrictions on financial transfers to the North. The United States should lower its diplomatic activity toward Pyongyang, keeping channels open, but forcing North Korea to provide incentives for greater dialogue. A missile launch should not end our attempts at diplomacy or cause us to forget that North Korea's relative military capabilities are in decline, but if a test is conducted business cannot continue as usual. Although a North Korean missile launch would do great damage to political support for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) in the United States, Japan, and South Korea, it should not be a reason for us to abandon our commitments under the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework stands as the major bulwark against a return to the kind of calamitous military steps the United States was forced to consider in 1994 to stop North Korea's nuclear program. Inspections of suspicious underground facilities at Kumchangri in May revealed no North Korean violation of the Agreed Framework. Although we cannot assume from this that Pyongyang has forsaken its nuclear ambitions, we do know that implementation of the Agreed Framework remains the best approach to preventing nuclear weapons development in the North. In the end, there is no easy solution to the intractable North Korean problem. Efforts to reduce tensions and build North-South reconciliation have yielded little. We are strong enough to test inducements for change in the North, but our policy must be based on robust deterrence and close defense cooperation with our allies.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Arms Control and Proliferation
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, East Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and Korean Peninsula

114. Security Multilateralism in Asia: Views from the United States and Japan

Author:
Stephan Haggard, Ralph Cossa, Daniel Pinkston, and Akiko Fukushima
Publication Date:
06-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
The U.S. government has been generally supportive of, and an active participant in, a broad variety of multilateral security dialogue mechanisms that have emerged in the Asia-Pacific region in recent years. These efforts at building trust and confidence, both at the official and at the nongovernmental or so-called track-two level, have the potential for enhancing Northeast Asian regional security. All Northeast Asian nations express support for such efforts, and the current trend toward multilateralism is generally consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives in Asia as an important complement to America's bilateral security arrangements, which remain the foundation of U.S. security policy in Asia.
Topic:
Security and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, America, Israel, Asia, and Northeast Asia

115. Chinese Military Modernization and Asian Security

Author:
Michael Swaine
Publication Date:
08-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
I'll speak on the question of Chinese military defense modernization and its implications for the Asian security environment. I'll try to keep my remarks at a level where we can talk about broader issues and concepts, and the implications of all this for regional evolution in the security environment, U.S. security interests, U.S.-Japan relations, etc. I want to cover four different areas in my remarks.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, and Asia

116. The Origins and Evolution of the Korean-American Alliance: A Japanese Perspective

Author:
Koji Murata
Publication Date:
08-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
This paper examines the importance of the Korean-American alliance for Japan from a historical perspective. The U.S.-Japan alliance is important for the security of South Korea because it provides logistic support for the U.S. activities on the Korean peninsula. This is obvious if we look into the reasons why the Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation were revised in September 1997. At the same time, the U.S.-ROK alliance is also important for the security of Japan because it functions as a buffer or shield for Japan. Bounded on the north by China and Russia, and only thirty miles from the closest Japanese island, the Korean peninsula is the fulcrum where the major powers' interests in Asia converge. Tokyo is about one hour from Seoul by jet aircraft.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Asia, Tokyo, Korea, and Island

117. Benefits and Burdens: The Politically Dominated Economics of U.S. Alliances with Japan and Korea

Author:
Charles Wolf and Michele Zanini
Publication Date:
04-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
Alliances are organizations between or among independent entities that concert to produce “collective goods” for the mutual benefit of alliance members. The statement applies whether the alliances are between or among countries, corporations, universities, research centers, or other institutions. Of course, the nature of the collective goods, as well as the membership in the collectivity, differs across these cases. That the goods (or benefits) are “collective” means that their availability to one alliance member (or their production by any member) implies their availability to the other members of the alliance.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, and Economics
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Israel, East Asia, and Korea

118. The Japan-America Security Alliance: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century

Author:
Daniel Okimoto
Publication Date:
01-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
By almost any criterion of success—be it cost–effectiveness, risk–reward ratio, multiplier effects, or sheer longevity, the Japan America Security Alliance (JASA) stands out as one of the most successful alliances in twentieth century history. For the United States, chief architect of a global network of military relationships, JASA is arguably the most important of its many bilateral alliances. In terms of historic impact, JASA is comparable to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a multilateral alliance that restructured the European security landscape in 1949. For nearly a half–century, JASA and NATO have functioned as the bedrock on which the Cold War security systems of Asia and Europe have been constructed.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, America, Europe, and Asia

119. The Tests of War and the Strains of Peace

Author:
Harold Brown, Bruce Stokes, Richard L. Armitage, and James J. Shinn
Publication Date:
04-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The U.S.-Japan security relationship is far too important to peace and stability in Asia to allow it to simply wither away or to be destroyed by a crisis. But the relationship is not sustainable in the form that served it so well during the Cold War. To weather both the "tests of war" and the "strains of peace," the alliance must be strengthened by adapting to the new realities and security challenges of the 21st century. The revision of the U.S.-Japan Guidelines for Defense Cooperation, announced September 23, 1997, was an important step in that direction. But the Japanese Diet must still pass laws implementing these changes. More broadly, Japan must: make the case directly and convincingly to the Japanese public that closer security ties with the United States are in Japan's self interest; agree to engage in explicit defense cooperation so that Japanese forces can be "planned in" rather than "planned out" of U.S. military operations in a range of Asian regional contingencies; engage in a serious dialogue with the United States on long term weapons acquisition plans, including some commitment by Japan to Theater Missile Defense. For its part, the United States must: convince the American public and the Congress that a continued security relationship with Japan is essential to the United States; increase the flexibility of the Pentagon regarding the basing of its troops in Asia, including its forces in Japan, and especially in Okinawa; clearly commit to keep the Japanese security alliance as America's premier security relationship in Asia. And both nations need to: cooperate more closely in gathering and sharing intelligence; coordinate more actively on nuclear nonproliferation and counterterrorism activities; enhance mutual political consultation so that in a crisis Japan shares more authority in as well as responsibility for the alliance. These changes should be implemented at a deliberate pace with a careful eye to the political climate and the art of the possible in Washington, Tokyo, and other Asian capitals. Only in this way can the U.S.-Japan security relationship be adapted to the challenges that lie ahead.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, and East Asia

120. U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines: Toward a New Accommodation of Mutual Responsibility

Author:
Paul Giarra
Publication Date:
06-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
The conclusion of the Cold War has undercut presumptions about America's commitment to Asian security and the defense of Japan. The Cold War the need to contain the Soviet Union no longer exists as an inherent rationale and the organizing principle for an American national doctrine for overseas engagement. This is a major consequence of the end of the Cold War. The conclusion of the Cold War has undercut presumptions about America's commitment to Asian security and the defense of Japan. The Cold War the need to contain the Soviet Union no longer exists as an inherent rationale and the organizing principle for an American national doctrine for overseas engagement. This is a major consequence of the end of the Cold War.
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, America, Israel, East Asia, Asia, and Soviet Union