'아베'에 해당되는 글 3건

  1. 2015.06.07 [International Relations of the Asia-Pacific] "Japan Inc.'s remilitarization? A firm-centric analysis..."
  2. 2014.11.05 [일본-노트] Japan, the Active State?: Security Policy after 9/11 (David Arase)
  3. 2014.09.17 [일본-노트] 교육법안비교 1890, 1947, 2007

[International Relations of the Asia-Pacific] "Japan Inc.'s remilitarization? A firm-centric analysis..."

[연구] Research 2015. 6. 7. 08:09

"Japan Inc.'s remilitarization? A firm-centric analysis on Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Japan's defense industry in the new-TPAE regime"

Bee Yun JoInternational Relations of the Asia Pacificdoi: 10.1093/irap/lcv011

  • 일본 아베정부가 2014년 TPAE(Three Principles of the Arms Exports)를 새로운 원칙으로 수정한 이후 일본 방산기업들이 글로벌 무기시장에서 보다 적극적인 활동을 펼칠 것이란 시각을 일본의 기업중심적 시각으로 분석해보고자 하였다. 일본의 최대방산기업인 미쓰비시 중공업(MHI)과 일본의 국방백서를 살펴보고, 추가로 가와사키중공업(KHI), US-2 amphibian aircraft로 유명한 ShinMaywa, 그리고 IHI 기업의 새로운-TPAE에 대한 변화추이를 분석해보았다. 새로운-TPAE에서 일본이 적극적으로 참여할 것이란 F-35 (MHI, KHI, Mitsubishi Electric), 오스트렐리아 등 동남아시아 국가들에게 수출될 것이라 꼽히는 Soryu-class submarines (MHI-KHI 조인트 생산), US-2 케이스들도 다뤘다. 

  • 연구초기단계에선 ShinMaywa 대신에 Mitsubishi Electric을 살펴보았었는데 자료불충분으로 그 내용을 누락시켰다. 
  • free-access links 

    Abstract:

    http://irap.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/lcv011?
    ijkey=y3y62ud8HCE6ogB&keytype=ref

    Full Text:

    http://irap.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/lcv011?
    ijkey=y3y62ud8HCE6ogB&keytype=ref

    PDF:

    http://irap.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/lcv011?
    ijkey=y3y62ud8HCE6ogB&keytype=ref




    Trackbacks 0 : Comments 0

    Write a comment


    [일본-노트] Japan, the Active State?: Security Policy after 9/11 (David Arase)

    [연구] Research 2014. 11. 5. 10:57

    Japan, the Active State?: Security Policy after 9/11 (David Arase)
    Asian Survey, Vol. 47, No. 4 (July/August 2007), pp. 560-583.

    Summary & Note (Oct. 29, 2014) – Bee Yun Jo

     

    Overview

    David Arase begins the article with a quote from Ishihara Shintaro, who in 2005 projected that the increasing regional tensions and uncertainties can stimulate Japan to emerge from its “passivity” and become “a strong nation,” as well as foreseeing the possibility of Japan’s more upfront confrontation with China. As Arase states, the central irony or interesting puzzle here is that while Ishihara’s view represents the perspectives of those always held by the “extremes,” the recent developments in Japan’s security policy seem indeed to be assimilating towards the extremes. Overall, Arase’s conclusion is that this is not because Ishihara’s view has “mellowed but because Japan has changed.”

     

    Main Question and Argument

    Q1.      Why and how has Japan changed? (Japan’s increasing activism)

    n  Mix of the internal and external factors that encouraged Japan to change = “a new alignment of factors at the levels of international structure, domestic institutions, and national identity”:

    Three major factors in consideration

    -     (External) Security environments

    -     (Internal) Domestic institutional environments

    -     (External-Internal) National identity (9/11)

     

    Q2.           How is Japan’s change influencing its security policy now?  

    n  Expanding the U.S.-Japan alliance (Japan as an active ally)

    n  But also Japan’s increasing autonomy and assertiveness in the regional security policy.

     

    Evidences

    Q1.     Why and how has Japan changed? (Japan’s increasing activism)

     

    1.       “Resistant Phase” (1951-1989): “modest, defensively configured military”

    Fundamental Factors:

    1)       (External) International structure:

    -        U.S. Occupation and the resulting postwar Constitution (demilitarization) => “free ride”

    -        U.S. did not need Japan to balance the Soviet Union

    2)       (Internal) Institutional:

    -        Befitting the “Yoshida Doctrine” (focus on the recovery)

    3)       (External-internal) National identity:

    -        Trauma of atomic bombing and defeat (=> Article 9)

    ð  Configuration of structural, institutional and normative factors = obstruction on Japan’s rearmament and U.S. policy toward Japan (“one-sided burden” to U.S. and Japan’s “free-ride”)

     

    Yet “Passive Resistance”

    During this phase, the right wing view lacked support, yet remained where U.S. pressure factor played an important role (low-profile continuity in the efforts for Japan’s activism) – Hatoyama Ichiro => Kishi Nobusuke => Nakasone Yasuhiro => Abe Shinzo

    -        Korean War => Self Defense Force (SDF) in 1954, yet senshu boei (exclusive defense) – the Basic Policy for National Defense

    -        Vietnam War => “autonomous defense (jishu boei)” (Prime Minister Sato) => 1976 National Defense Program Outline (NDPO) – a compromise between jishu and senshu boei.

    -        U.S.-Japan 1980s trade friction => Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and violation of the 1% GDP defense ceiling in 1987

    ð  Overall, 1980s ended with “one-sided” burden on U.S., while Japan maintained its “passive resistance”

     

    2.       “Reluctant Phase” (1989-2001): Reactive to U.S.’s “prod” for Japan’s “extra-territorial role”

    Fundamental Factors:

    1)      (External) International structure:

    -        The post-Cold War international structure => Fall in the U.S.’s strategic interest in Japan

    -        Japan’s threat of abandonment: dependence on U.S. (oil, security)

    -        Japan’s checkbook diplomacy no longer suffices (exemplified by the U.S. reaction during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War)

    -        1993 North Korea’s test of Nodong missile, withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)

    2)      => (Internal) Institutional changes

    -        International Peace Cooperation Law (1992), allowing SDF to join the PKO activities

    -        1995 NDPO, authorizing the SDF to address “situations in the areas around Japan that have a direct effect on Japan’s security”

    3)      => (External-internal) National identity:

    -        “normative barrier” against overseas dispatch of SDF broken

     

    Additional Internal Factors: Domestic Reforms since the 1990s

    1)      The electoral reform in 1994 (SNTV + MMD -> SMD + PR): Weakened Factionalism

    2)      Change in policy process – Administrative reform and centralization of power in the cabinet (1999 “Law to Amend the Cabinet Law” and “Law to Establish the Cabinet Office”)

     

    ð  bureaucratic dominated => Prime minister, policy-oriented leadership

    ð  A new alignment of structural (most important), institutional and normative factors = Japan’s “reluctant” move towards a more active security policy; “a redefined alliance”

     

     

    Q2.     How is Japan’s change influencing its security policy now? 

     

    3.       Japan as Active State? (2001-2006)

    Fundamental Factors

    1)      (External) 9/11 => SDF dispatch to Afghanistan and Iraq

    -        (Koizumi) Anti Terrorism Special Measures Law in 2001 (Afghanistan)

    -        Special Measures Law on Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance in 2003 (Iraq)

    2)      (Internal) Generational change (Abe)

    -        Rejection of the Yoshida doctrine (i.e. U.S.-Japan alliance, minimal security role, low profile, economy first)

    -        Centralization of power under PM

    -        Security and defense oriented Cabinet (security-oriented experts in the Cabinet, commission of defense experts, 2005 National Defense Program Guideline, the five year Mid-Term Defense Plan)

    3)      National Identity: “reviving nationalist sentiment”

    ð  The difference from previous years is that “key international, institutional, and normative factors that had inhibited a growing international security role for Japan… are today aligning in a mutually reinforcing way to facilitate a positive, forward-leaning toward security.”

     

    Other Regional Factors that Convey Japan’s Increased Assertiveness
    (autonomy from U.S.-Japan alliance)

    1)      North Korea: “uncharacteristic activism” and “uncompromising line”

    -        The launch of a Taepodong II missile on July 5, 2006 => “uncharacteristic activism” calling for a U.N. Security Council meeting (=> U.N. Security Council Resolution 1695)

    -        Abduction issue => Abe’s “uncompromising line”

    -        Participation in U.S.’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)

    2)      South Korea: Yasukuni Shrine visits and territorial issues

    3)      China: arms-race, worsening public poll, territorial issues

    4)      U.S.-Japan Alliance Transformation (Active SDF)

    -        Inclusion of Taiwan strait issue as U.S.-Japan’s “common strategic objectives” in 2005

    -        Towards a global scope bilateral cooperation (WMD, terrorism, energy)

    -        New alliance that aims a close partnership between the SDF and U.S. (“U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future” in 2005; “The United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation” in 2006).

     

    To recap: By analyzing how the configuration of the structural (external), institutional (internal), and normative factors shifted in Japan, Arase provides a comprehensive overview on why and how Japan’s security posture transformed towards an increasingly active approach. In regards to the U.S.-Japan alliance, Arase provides the update on Japan’s regional policy and the impact of 9/11, and conveys that there are two sides to Japan’s increasing activism: 1) “the long-standing U.S. desire for a more active Japanese ally is being fulfilled”; while 2) the increased activism translates into Japan’s independent regional security policy (e.g. North Korean abduction issue, territorial and maritime disputes, and the normalization process with North Korea and Russia).

     

    Conclusion & Comments

    Arase’s Conclusion

    Overall, based on the findings on how Japan’s activism transcends into Japan’s willingness to play the role of an active security ally to the U.S. (U.S.-Japan alliance strengthening) and an independent and assertive role in the region, Arase concludes with a caution that Japan’s remilitarization in the current environment – where Japan is becoming ever more “receptive” to U.S. pressure; Japan and the neighboring countries are interacting without a multilateral security regime or other collective framework to dissuade conflict – Japan’s new security role and assertiveness “may not turn out” as well as Ishihara, or the U.S. may have imagined.

     

    Comments

    *Comprehensive: Overview of both the domestic&international factors, mutually reinforcing.

    *Going back to the debate on whether Japan is a reactive state, Arase’s paper provides a significant insight: Unlike the perspective that Japan’s post-war security policy is an example of Japan as a reactive state, responding to the U.S.’s gaiatsu, Arase’s paper implies that while the U.S.-led international structure or U.S.’s pressures served as important independent variable in determining Japan’s security policy, “reactive” may be a term too far-fetched or simplifying, for Japan has always maintained resistance (“passive resistance”) and strategically used U.S.’s pressure for Japan to “free-ride” and gradual remilitarization (right wing agenda). With 9/11 and previous domestic reforms, the 2000s marks the height of Japan’s relative activism which emerged from a continuity in the past.

    *Implications on today: While published in 2007, Arase’s cautious remark on how Japan’s activism may endanger the complexity of the region still holds in today’s environment. Food for thought: U.S.’s pivot to Asia policy and Japan’s normal country agenda – As Arase comments, while U.S. may have wanted Japan’s increase in the security role in the region, current Abe’s agenda and Japan’s increasing autonomy in its regional policy may not be befitting to U.S.’s strategic interest.

    Trackbacks 0 : Comments 0

    Write a comment


    [일본-노트] 교육법안비교 1890, 1947, 2007

    [연구] Research 2014. 9. 17. 19:50


    Reform Forward or Backward?

    Basic Education Law 1947 and 2007

    Bee Yun Jo (2014.9.16) 


    Focusing on the debate whether Abe's reform is an effort to reindoctrinate patriotism and breach the spirit of post-war Constitution...


    Meiji Law on Education: 1890


    Essential Points

       Focus on imperialistic moral

    -  Worship of the Emperor, Service for the nation

    -  Diminished individual freedom

    - Signed by Emperor Meiji of Japan on 30 October 1890

    - Purpose & Implementation:

    1) to articulate the principles of education on the Empire of Japan.

    2) The 315 character document was read aloud at all important school events, and students were required to study and memorize the text.

    3) Mobilization purposes: loyalty and moral force to support the rise of militarisn and ultranationalism in the prewar years; Confucian virtues incorportated.

    Should emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the State; and thus guard and maintain the prosperity of Our Imperial Throne coeval with heaven and earth

    4) Overall, to educate individuals to loyal surbordinates of the state:

    The attitude that education should be for the purpose of the State rather than for the liberation of the individual has permeated the entire system.[각주:1]

    Eradication of thoughts based on individualism and liberalism, and the firm establishment of a national moral standard with emphasis on service to the state.”[각주:2]



    Basic Education Law 1947


    Essential Points

    Initiated by GHQ under the US Occupation.

    Esteem “individual value” and nurture an “independent spirit”

      To establish “peaceful and democratic state and society” (Article1)

    - Abolishment of Meiji Law on Education (June 19th, 1948)


    In comparison to the Meiji Education Law, the 1947 law reflects the efforts:

    -          To adopt the 1946 Peace Constitution - the overeall pacifist, democratic emphasis of the constitution

    -          To dismantle the wartime militarist feudal regime in Japan

    -          To influence the sentiment of masses towards the wartime regime’s repressive and anti-democratic methods.

    -          To replace “the pre-war education system which was based on conservative Confucian ideology and the glorification of the Japanese imperial system”[각주:3] – “virtue of filial piety, loyalty to the emperor and love for the state”

    -          To establish mandatory free education for all young people for nine years emphasizing the “full development of personality” (Article 1)

    -          To abolish state control on education: “Education should not be subject to improper control, but shall be directly responsible to the whole people”(Article 10); teachers are the “servants of the whole community”(Article 6).

    -          To prevents discrimination against race, religion, gender, social position, economic status, etc – egalitarian values emphasized



    Basic Education Law 2006 (revised in December 2006, issued in June 2007)



    Essential Points

    Initiated by the first Abe Cabinet

    - Debate on the possible breach on the spirit of post-war constitution, by revoking nationalism within the Education Law

    - 18 Articles in total


    Many critiques have pointed out the traits of patriotism in the new reform bill as concrete evidences to Abe’s aim to breach the spirit of country’s post-war constitution. Some of the main arguments are as the following:


    THE DEBATE

    Aiming to revise patriotism?

    -        Article 1: Revised Article 1 now states that education shall aim at the “full development of personality” and nurture their citizens, sound in mind and body, who have the necessary qualities for building “a peaceful and democratic state and society.”

    -      Article 2: “…Foster an attitude to respect our traditions and culture, love the country and region that nurtured them, together with respect for other countries and a desire to contribute to world peace and the development of the international community.

    => In reference to Article 2, critiques point out that Abe declared the goal of education as to develop students’ “respect for the nation’s tradition and culture and fostering an attitude of love for the nation and the homeland that cultivated them.” Citing declining education skills and deteriorating morality, Abe declared that his aim was “to nurture people with ambitions and create a country with dignity”. Such phrases, critiques argue, are nationalism and patriotism that have been muted in the previous 1947 law.

    -    Elimination of Article 6 and 10 of the 1947 Education Law:

    => Many critiques have also pointed out that the new law aims to increase state control on education as the new law has deleted the two essential features of 1947 law: “Education should not be subject to improper control, but shall be directly responsible to the whole people.”(Article 10), and Article 6 defined teachers as “servants of the whole community” in the 1947 Education law.

    => Replaced with: “The schools prescribed by law shall be of a public nature, and only the national government, local governments, and juridical persons prescribed by law shall be entitled to establish them” (Article 6)


     

    Meiji Law on Education

    Basic Education Law 1947

    Basic Education Law 200

    Patriotic spirit

    O

    X

    O

    Emphasis on the “virtue of filial piety, loyalty to the emperor and love for the state”

    Emphasis on “full development of personality” (Article 1)

    * Abe administration now denounces this as the “cause for the moral decay of Japanese society.”[각주:4]

     

    Emphasis to ““to nurture people with ambitions and create a country with dignity”, “respect for the nation’s tradition and culture and fostering an attitude of love for the nation and the homeland that cultivated them.” (Article 2)

    State Control

    O

    X

    O

     

    Article 10 declared: “Education should not be subject to improper control, but shall be directly responsible to the whole people.” Article 6 defined teachers as “servants of the whole community”.

    Deleted the Article 10 and 6 phrases of the 1947 law. Replaced with “The schools prescribed by law shall be of a public nature, and only the national government, local governments, and juridical persons prescribed by law shall be entitled to establish them (Article 6)



    Or
    Just an update to fit 21st Century Japan?

    While Abe’s take on the reform is a hotly debated topic, a critical review of the 2007 law illustrates that the new law does not necessarily mean a return to the past. The review of  article 1, 2, 3, 4 incorporate the efforts to update the education law to fit the 21st century.
     

    Article 1 and Article 2

     Article 1 Education shall aim for the full development of personality and strive to nurture the citizens, sound in mind and body, who are imbued with the qualities necessary for those who form a peaceful and democratic state and society.

     Article 2  To realize the aforementioned aims, education shall be carried out in such a way as to achieve the following objectives, while respecting academic freedom:

     (1) to foster an attitude to acquire wide-ranging knowledge and culture, and to seek the truth, cultivate a rich sensibility and sense of morality, while developing a healthy body.

     (2) to develop the abilities of individuals while respecting their value; cultivate their creativity; foster a spirit of autonomy and independence; and foster an attitude to value labor while emphasizing the connections with career and practical life.

     (3) to foster an attitude to value justice, responsibility, equality between men and women, mutual respect and cooperation, and actively contribute, in the public spirit, to the building and development of society.

     (4) to foster an attitude to respect life, care for nature, and contribute to the protection of the environment.

     (5) to foster an attitude to respect our traditions and culture, love the country and region that nurtured them, together with respect for other countries and a desire to contribute to world peace and the development of the international community.

     

    Article 3 and 4 of the law further specify that all citizens should be given the equal opportunities for education:

    Article 3 and 4


    Article 3 Society shall be made to allow all citizens to continue to learn throughout their lives, on all occasions and in all places, and apply the outcomes of lifelong learning appropriately to refine themselves and lead a fulfilling life.

    Article 4 (1) Citizens shall all be given equal opportunities to receive education according to their abilities, and shall not be subject to discrimination in education on account of race, creed, sex, social status, economic position, or family origin.

     (2) The national and local governments shall provide support in education to persons with disabilities, to ensure that they are given adequate education in accordance with their condition.

     (3) The national and local governments shall take measures to provide financial assistance to those who, in spite of their ability, encounter difficulties in receiving education for economic reasons.

     

    In overview, it  may be arguable that the new law serves as to update the law to fit 21st century Japan. The new law serves as:

    1)   emphasis on the value of tradition, history, and culture (community) in the modern era of individualism (Article 2)

    2)  emphasis to adopt the demographic changes of the aging society – transition to a lifelong egalitarian learning society (Article 3)

    3)  emphasis on entrepreneurship and creativity (Article 2)

    4)  emphasis on the impacts of internationalization, modern media, and the need to build a harmonious society (Article 2)


     

    Emphasis

    Articles                                               ⓒBee Yun Jo, http://bjo.co.kr, 2014                 

    Tradition, history, culture, love for nation

    Article 2 “To foster an attitude to respect our traditions and culture, love the country and region that nurtured them

    Demographic Change

    Article 3 “to continue to learn throughout their lives, on all occasions and in all places, and apply the outcomes of lifelong learning appropriately to refine themselves and lead a fulfilling life.”

    Entrepreneurship and Creativity

    Article 2 “foster an attitude to value labor while emphasizing the connections with career and practical life”; “cultivate their creativity”

    Internationalization

    Article 2 “together with respect for other countries and a desire to contribute to world peace and the development of the international community”




    References


    ·      Basic Education Law http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/H18/H18HO120.html (in Japanese)

    ·      http://www.mext.go.jp/english/lawandplan/1303462.htm  (in English)

    ·      Education in the Empire of Japan: The Imperial Rescript on Education.

    ·        MEXT, Basic Act on Education (Act No. 120 of December 22, 2006 http://www.mext.go.jp/english/lawandplan/1303462.htm (in English) (Accessed Sep 16, 2014)

    ·      The politics of Structural Education Reform by Keith A. Nitta

    ·      UNESCO, World Data on Education, 7th edition, 2010/11, Available at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdf-versions/Japan.pdf, p.1




    1. An Office of Strategic Services document on Japanese education, 1941 [본문으로]
    2. Speech by the mister of education, 1941 [본문으로]
    3. Joe Lopez, ‘Japan’s “Education reform” to indoctrinate nationalism?’, (3 January 2007) Avaialble at http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/01/japa-j03.html (accessed September 9, 2014) [본문으로]
    4. Joe Lopez, ‘Japan’s “Education reform” to indoctrinate nationalism?’, (3 January 2007) Avaialble at http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/01/japa-j03.html (accessed September 9, 2014) [본문으로]
    Trackbacks 0 : Comments 0

    Write a comment