THE STUDY ON JAPAN NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY AS A …repository.uinjkt.ac.id › dspace ›...

THE STUDY ON JAPAN NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

AS A SHIFT IN JAPAN SECURITY POLICY (2010-2013)

An Undergraduate Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirement

For Bachelor of Arts in International Relations

By:

Muhammad Jamaluddien

109083100020

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

FACULTY OF POLITICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA

2014

v

ABSTRACT

This research analyzes the shift of security policy that Japan made to

establish NSS even it challenges the Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution. In this

regard, this research presents the contradiction between the principles of NSS and

the Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution as well as the factors of the establishment of

NSS. The objective of this research is to analyze the factors that cause the

insistence of Japan in establishing NSS even if it contradicts with Article 9 of

Japan’s Constitution. In this regard, after series of researches, this research found

out the factors of the insistence of Japan in establishing NSS even it contradicts

with Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution.

This research uses three concepts as the theoretical framework, they are:

foreign policy, national security and deterrence. By using these concepts, it can be

concluded that there are several factors which are required the insistence of Japan

to establish NSS by challenging the Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution.

vi

PREFACE

Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamin. All praise be to Allah, the Creator of

humankind. Because of His blessing, this research finally could be completed

with all the experience that has been through. Shalawat and salam be to His

messenger prophet Muhammad PBUH who has spread and thought Islamic values

to his ummah in this world.

The author also feels grateful for every support and motivation given by

all, so this research can be completed:

1. My great special super thank dedicated to my beloved mimi, Sailah who

never stops praying, encouraging and teaching me. Thank you so much to

demand me finishing my thesis in every call you made. I also would like

to thank my brother and sisters; Titin Fatimah, M. Abduh and Siti Aminah

who always ask me when I will graduate.

2. The author would also say a lot of thank to all lecturers in Faculty of

Social and Political Sciences of State Islamic University Syarif

Hidayatullah, especially Pak Budi Satari who has wanted to become my

thesis advisor and helped me a lot in completing this thesis. My

appreciation also goes to Ibu Debbie Affianty, Pak Ahmad Alfajri, Ibu

Mutiara Pertiwi who have been very cooperative conveying their great and

critical ideas for the sake and the goodness of my thesis.

3. I would like to say thank to my best friend, Luki Muhammad Aziz the

happy single fighter, who has been becoming someone to share everything

vii

about, even though he has not completed his study yet. I hope him to

complete his study before dropped out. And to all fellows in high school;

AFIF, Faqih, Hasyim, Andre, Imam, Ozan, Alif, Alim, Ade, Andi, Habib,

Muhaimin, Gesta, Yafie, Ihsan, Iqbal, Alghi and Jihad.

4. I also would like to thank all my classmates, IR 09; Rifki. Eky, Uki, Fahmi,

Fayat, Sobah, Alul, Al, Kisnan, Mansur, Edi, Imam, Eris, Nargis, Sabran,

Syifa, Ani, Rianna, Dinda, Ami, Ala, Mike and Putri. Thanks for the

togetherness along our way in campus. My gratitude also to my college

friends; Tera, Ops, Ahfa, Tobri, Sadik, Alvin, Eka, Mocca, Bayu, Hendrik,

Yadi, Fuad, Ii, Bebew, Fajar, Faruq, Abay, Seruni, Babeh and others that

cannot be mentioned here.

5. Thanks a lot is also to Admeve; Galih, Rizky and Haris who have been

giving joyful and happiness in tough time.

Lastly, with all modesty, author asks forgiveness for mistakes written in

this research. Author also hopes to receive any comments that can improve

abilities in the next research and does expect this research can be useful for those

who need it and for academic enrichment.

MUHAMMAD JAMALUDDIEN

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………….v

PREFACE………………………………………………………………………...vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………..viii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………..…………x

GLOSSARY…………………………………………………………………........xi

Chapter I Introduction

A. Background………………………………………………………………..1

B. Research Question…………………………………………………………5

C. Research Objective……………………………………………….………..6

D. Literature Review……………………………………………………….…6

E. Theoretical Framework……………………………………………...…….8

F. Research Method………………………………………………...……….11

G. Tentative Outline…………………………………………………………13

Chapter II The Constitution of Japan

A. Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan 1947……………..……...…..……17

B. Japan’s Basic Policy of National Defense…………………..……….…..18

C. The Japan-US Security Alliance…………………………………………19

D. The Establishment of Self-Defense Forces (JSDF.………………………21

1. Justification of JSDF Existence………………..…………..…….…..22

Chapter III The Establishment of Japan’s National Security Strategy (NSS)

A. National Security Strategy of Japan.……………………………………..24

ix

B. 2010-2013 Incident………………………………………………………27

Chapter IV The Factors that Influence the Shift of Security Policy of Japan

A. Internal Factors…………………………………………………………...35

1. The Prime Minister of Shinzo Abe: The Shift of Japan National

Security Policy…………………….………………….……...…...….35

2. Pubic Support………………………………………………………...37

B. External Factors……………………………..……………………....…...38

1. The Escalation of Military Involvement in the Surrounding of the

Senkaku Islands…………………...…………….…………...…...…..38

2. The Shift Power in Asia……………………………………………...42

Chapter V Conclusion

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of the disputed Senkaku/Daiyou Islands………………………….25

Figure 2 Map of Japan and China ADIZ…………………………………………33

xi

GLOSSARY

ADIZ : Air Defense Identification Zone

CMS : China Marine Surveillance

CNOOC : Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation

CZ : Contiguous Zone

ECAFE : Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East

EIA : Energy Information Administration

FC : Fire Control

FLEC : Fisheries Law Enforcement Command

GOJ : Government of Japan

JCG : Japan Coast Guard

JMSDF : Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

JSDF : Japan Self-Defense Force

NDPG : New Development Program Guidelines

NPR : National Police Reserve

NSC : National Security Council

NSS : National Security Strategy

PLAN : People Liberation Army Navy

SCAP : Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers

SDF : Self-Defense Force

SOA : State Oceanic Administration

TMG : Tokyo Metropolitan Government

TW : Territorial Water

UNCLOS : United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNSCAR 27 : US Civil Administration of the Ryukyus Proclamation 27

xii

REFERENCES

BOOK

Auer, James E. Article Nine of Japan's Constitution: From Renuctiation of Armed

Force "Forever" to the Third Largest Defence Budget in the World. Law

and Contemporary Problems, 1990.

Breuning, Marijke. Foreign Policy Analysis; A Comparative Introduction. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in

International Relations. 1983.

Frederic S. Pearson, J. Martin Rochester. International Relations; The Global

Condition in the Twenty First Century. McGraw-Hill Companies, 1998.

Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry:

Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press,

1994.

Gordon, Beate Sirota. The Only Woman in the Room: A Memoir. New York:

Kodansha International, 1997.

Hermann, Charles F. "Defining National Security." In American Defense Policy,

by Steven R. Sturm John F. Reichart, 19. Baltimore: John Hopkins

University Press, 1982.

Holsti, K. J. International Politics; Framework for Analysis. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall International, Inc., 1992.

Koch, Kris. The US Occupation of Japan (In What Way Did It Influence Japan?).

1999.

xiii

Morgan, Patrick M. The State of Deterrence in International Politics Today. Old

Dominion University, 2012.

Pettibon, Jonathan E. Capabilities of Japanese Defense Force and Its Impact on

United States-Japan Relation. California, 2011.

Scully, William L., and Guy M. Hicks. Japan's Defense Policy. 1981.

Setsuko, Onada. Memories of War and Peace-building in Post-War Japan:

Japanese Constitution as. 2003.

Shoichi, Koseki. The Birth of Japan's Postwar Constitution. Colo: Westview

Press, 1998.

JOURNALS

Atanassova, Elena. "Japan's New Approach to National Security." Brief Issue,

2014.

Baldwin, Dacid A. "The Concept of Security." In Review of International Studies,

12. British International Studies Association, 1997.

Bhattacherjee, Anol. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices.

Creative Commons Attribution, 2012.

Chanlett-Avery, Emma, and Weston N. Konishi. The Changing US-Japan

Alliance: Implication for US Interest. Washington DC: Congressional

Research Services, 2009.

Department of Dissarmament Affairs. Study on Deterrence; Its Implications for

Disarmament and the Arms Race, Negotiated Arms Reductions and

International Security and Other Related Matters. New York: United

Nation, 1987.

Drifte, Reinhard. "The Senkaku/Diayou Islands Territorial Dispute between Japan

and China: Between the Materialization of "China Threat" and Japan

xiv

"Reversing the Outcome of World War II"." UNISCI Discussion Papers,

2013.

Edstorm, Bert. "The Success of a Successor: Abe Shinzo and Japan's Foreign

Policy." Silk Road Paper, 2007.

EIA. Washington DC: US Department of Energy, 2012.

Hancock, Beverley. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Trent Focus Group,

1998.

Defense Agency of Japan. Defense of Japan. Tokyo, 1978.

Kato, Akira. "The United States: The Hidden Actor in the Senkaku Islands." Asia

Pasific Bulletin, 2013.

Manyin, Mark E. "Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Islands Dispute: US Treaty

Obligation." Congressional Research Services, 2013.

Martin Dixon, Robert McCorquodale. Cases & Materials on International Law.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Noboru, Yomoguchi. "On the New National Defense Program Guidlines." Japan

Discuss, 2014.

Parisi, Lynn. "Lessons on Japan Constitution." Japan Digest, 2002: 1.

Paul, Joshy M. China's ADIZ and its Implication on East Asia Security: An

Assessment. 2014.

Pillai, Prakash. "Japan: Priming for New Defence Posture." National Defence and

Aerospace Power, 2011.

Yuki, Tatsumi. Japan's National Security Infrastructure: Can Tokyo Meet

Washington's Expectation? Washington: Stimson, 2008.

xv

INTERNET

Alkhalili, Omar. Disputed Territory: The Senkaku/Daiyou Islands. June 13, 2013.

http://www.polgeonow.com/2013/06/disputed-territory-senkaku-diaoyu-

islands-japan-china.html, (accessed October 2, 2013).

BBC. December 17, 2012. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19725705

(accessed July 8, 2014).

Centanni, Evan. "Japan-China Dispute: The Eight Islands of the Senkaku/Diaoyu

Group ." Political Geography Now. August 9, 2013.

http://www.polgeonow.com/2013/08/japan-china-dispute-eight-senkaku-

islands.html (accessed April 2, 2014).

Fundamental Concepts of National Defense. n.d.

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/d_policy/dp02.html (accessed March 21,

2014).

Hofilena, John. China-Japan Friendship Association to commemorate bilateral

treaty in Beijing. October 4, 2013. http://japandailypress.com/china-japan-

friendship-association-to-commemorate-bilateral-treaty-in-beijing-

0437130/ (accessed October 29, 2013).

Hornung, Jeffrey. "Japan's New Security Policies." Asia-Pasific Center for

Security Studies. November 22, 2013. https://www.apcsslink.org/news-

story/oped-japans-new-security-policies (accessed May 3, 2014).

Keck, Zachary. "Japan's Abe to visit Yasukuni Shrine." The Diplomat. December

26, 2013. http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/japans-abe-to-visit-yasukuni-

war-shrine/ (accessed April 29, 2014).

Koike, Yuriko. "Tipping Points to Asia’s Future." Project Syndicate. May 23,

2014. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/yuriko-koike-sees-in-

the-region-s-budding-alliances-hope-for-a-more-secure-structure-of-

peace#Tec5m8HWPlXgrysI.99 (accessed July 3, 2014).

xvi

Lee, Joyman. Senkaku/Diaoyu: Isladns of Conflict. May 2011.

http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict

(accessed October 10, 2013).

Logos. Amending Japan’s Peace Constitution. 2013.

http://logos.nationalinterest.in/amending-japans-peace-constitution-

increasing-regional-security-imbalance-in-asia/ (accessed April 26, 2014).

Mochizuki, Takashi. Most Japanese Support Change to Post War Charter. May 5,

2013.http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014241278873233725045

78464622440869226 (accessed July 8, 2014).

National Security Strategy. December 17, 2013.

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/96_abe/documents/2013/__icsFiles/afieldf

ile/2013/12/17/NDPG (accessed january 7, 2014).

Osawa, Jun. "China's ADIZ pver the East China Sea: A "Great Wall in the Sky?"."

Brookings. December 17, 2013.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/12/17-china-air-

defense-identification-zone-osawa (accessed May 3, 2014).

Park, Madison. "Why's China New Air ZoneIncensed Japan, U.S." CNN.

November 27, 2013. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asia/china-

japan-island-explainer/ (accessed June 15, 2014).

Perlez, Jane. China Accuses Japan of Stealing After Purchase of Group of

Disputed Islands. September 11, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/asia/china-accuses-japan-of-

stealing-disputed-islands.html (accessed October 28, 2013).

Pinem, Walter. Konflik Kepulauan Senkaku antara Cina-Jepang. April 2, 2013.

http://www.seniberpikir.com/konflik-kepulauan-senkaku-antara-cina-

jepang/ (accessed September 10, 2013).

xvii

Reedman, Anthony, Shimzaki Yoshihoko. A World of Difference. 2006.

http://www.ccop.or.th/digital-publication (accessed March 31, 2014).

San, John E. Vant. Constitution-Making in Occupied Japan. November 1999.

http://www.willamette.edu/~rloftus/BirthPostwarConstnRev.htm (accessed

March 20, 2014).

Senkaku Islands. June 5, 2013. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-

paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html (accessed April 5, 2014).

Septyoko, Pulung. Perebutan Wilayah Kepulauan Senkaku antara China dan

Jepang. n.d.

http://piko.thefifthleaf.com/AcademicStuff/stuff/Senkaku.docx (accessed

September 2, 2013).

Takahashi, Kosuke. "Shinzo Abe's Nationalist Strategy." The Diplomat. February

13, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/shinzo-abes-nationalist-

strategy/comment-page-1/ (accessed April 4, 2014).

Talmadge, Eric. Shinzo Abe Elected as Japan's Prime Minister. December 26,

2012. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/26/shinzo-abe-

japan-prime-minister/1791379/ (accessed July 8, 2014).

The Constitution: Context and History. n.d.

http://www.hartpub.co.uk/pdf/samples/9781841137926sample.pdf

(accessed March 18, 2014).

Traphagan, John W. "Revising the Japanese Constitution." The Diplomat. May 17,

2013. http://thediplomat.com/2013/05/revising-the-japanese-constitution/

(accessed July 8, 2014).

Wingfield-Hayes, Rupert. "Japan Boosts Military Forces to Counter China." BBC .

December 17, 2013. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25411653

(accessed May 3, 2014).

xviii

Yuzawa, Takeshi. "Japan's New Security Strategy: Changing National Identity."

East Asia Forum. March 20, 2014.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/03/20/japans-new-security-strategy-

changing-national-identity/ (accessed April 27, 2014).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………….v

TABLE OF FIGURES……………………………………………………..……..vi


A. Background………………………………………………………………..1







Chapter II The Constitution of Japan (1947)

A. Article 9.……………………………………………………..……..……17

B. Japan’s Basic Policy of National Defense…………………..……….…..18

C. Japan-US Alliance……………………………………………..…..……..19

D. Establishment of Japan Self Defense Force (JSDF)…………….…...…..20

1. Justification of JSDF Existence………………..………………..21

Chapter III The Establishment of NSS

A. The History of the Senkaku Islands……………………….……...……...26

1. 2010-2013 Incidents………………………………...…………...…...29

a) Crash between Chinese Fishing Trawler and Japan Coast Guard

Vessel (JCG)……………….………………………………...29

b) Nationalization of Three Senkaku Islands by Government of

Japan………………………………………………………….30

c) Military Confrontation in the Senkaku Islands……...…..…...31

d) The Establishment of ADIZ by Government of China…........32

B. Establishment of National Security Strategy (NSS)………….……...…..34

Chapter IV Japan NSS as Response towards China in the Case of the

Senkaku Islands Dispute

A. The Factors Affecting the issuance of Japan’s First National Security

Strategy as a Response toward China……………………….……....…...37

1. Internal Factors………………..………………………………..…….39

a) The Prime Minister of Shinzo Abe: The Shift of Japan National

Security Policy…………………….……………………...….39

2. External Factors……………………………..………………..……...40

a) The Escalation of Military Involvement in the Surrounding of

the Senkaku Islands…………………...…………….………..40

b) Senkaku Islands Dispute………………………………………

c) The Overlapped Area of China ADIZ over the Disputed

Senkaku Islands.……………………..…………..……….......41


TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of the disputed Senkaku/Daiyou Islands………………………….25

Figure 2 Map of Japan and China ADIZ…………………………………………33

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

On 17th

December, 2013, Japan for the first time under the administration

of Shinzo Abe as Prime Minister of Japan adopted the “National Security Strategy

(NSS)” approved by a Cabinet Decision and the National Security Council (NSC)

along with the new “National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG)” and “Mid-

term Defense Program” which were based on the NSS (Statement by Minister for

Foreign Affairs of Japan on Adoption of the “National Security Strategy (NSS)”

2013). The NSS provides the main guidelines of Japan‟s national security for the

next decades in the term of areas of seas, outer spaces and energy. By NSS, Japan

also promoted a better understanding of the country‟s strategic objectives and

responses both domestically and internationally (Atanassova 2014).

The NSS sets out Japan‟s fundamental military policies concerning with

national security, focusing on diplomatic policy and defense policy. Based on the

principle of international cooperation, the NSS presents the policy of “proactive

contribution to peace”. In this regard, Japan tries to achieve the security of Japan

as well as peace and stability in both region and global level based on the

fundamental principle of national security (Statement by Minister for Foreign

Affairs of Japan on Adoption of the “National Security Strategy (NSS)” 2013).

2

In the key concept of NSS, Japan as a “proactive contribution to peace,” is

clearly stated as follows:

“Japan will continue to adhere to the course that it

has taken to date as a peace-loving nation, and as a major

player in world politics and economy, contribute even more

proactively in securing the peace, stability, and prosperity

of the international community, while achieving its own

security as well as peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific

region, as a “Proactive Contributor to Peace” based on the

principle of international cooperation. This is the

fundamental principle of national security that Japan should

stand to (Japan's National Security Strategy 2013).”

The NSS says that Japan will contribute to the peace, stability and

prosperity of the international community through “proactive pacifism.” But what

meant by this phrase is the plans to reverse the government‟s traditional

interpretation of the Constitution‟s war-renouncing Article 9 that Japan will not

exercise its inherent right to collective self-defense (The Japan Times 2013). In

this regard, for the first time since the Pacific War's end in 1945, Japan's Self-

Defense Forces would be able to participate in collective self-defense, it means

that Japan could deploy JSDF as the aid of Japan to its allies when they are under

attack (Koike 2014).

The NSS is the result of government efforts to formulate a comprehensive

and integrated approach to national security. However, the establishment of NSS

was through debate for years on the constitution of Japan particularly Article 9. In

the first period of Shinzo Abe administration (2006-2007), the government of

Japan was planning to revise “the current interpretation of the constitution” in

order to permit Japan to engage in certain specified collective self-defense

3

operations (Martin 2007). In his second period in 2012 as Prime Minister of Japan,

Abe intended to amend the Constitution in the second times, especially the peace

clause:

“…country renounces to the possibility of war as a

mean of settling international disputes and prohibits the

presence of armed forces and other war potential and also

renounce threat or use of force as a sovereign right in order

to maintain international peace and security” (Logos 2013).

NSS is the first official policy document that implies the government‟s

intention to exercise the right to collective self-defense. “Proactive contribution to

peace” becomes the key phrase in the document of NSS. The phrase of “proactive

contributor to peace” reflects Abe‟s desire to expand Japan‟s military role,

especially in UN related missions and within the framework of the Japan–US

alliance by recognizing the nation‟s right to collective self-defense. (Yuzawa

2014).

In this case, on May 3rd

, 1947, following the defeat of Japan in World War

II, effectively Japan has been forced to adopt defense-oriented policy written in

the Constitution of Japan in article 9 which stated:

“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based

on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce

war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use

of force as means of settling international disputes. In order

to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea

and air force, as well as other war potential, will never be

maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not

be recognized.”

4

This article has been understood by the courts and all past governments of

Japan to prohibit Japan‟s participation in collective self-defense operations, or

engagement in any use of force, for any reason other than the direct defense of

Japan (Martin 2007). In other words, this would lead to the Self-Defense Forces‟

(SDF) participation in military operations in foreign countries, in most cases in

cooperation with the United States. An expansion of the SDF‟s roles in this

manner would completely destroy the no-war principle of the Constitution (The

Japan Times 2013).

Since the end of the post-World War II, Japan had been adopting defense-

oriented policy as its fundamental military policy which is written in the

Constitution of Japan, not becoming a military power and observing the Three

Non-Nuclear Principles. Then Japan developed Self Defense Force (SDF) which

is for Japanese internal security and committed not to be deployed abroad. This

policy is followed by making up alliance with the United States in order to

maintain its security and contribute to peace and stability in international world

(National Security Strategy 2013).

The increasing of security environment and national security challenges in

regional and global level such as the growing military strength of China and the

emergence of a nuclear-armed North Korea in the recent years contributes the

awareness of Japan to protect its national security. Therefore, in 2013, Japan for

the first time adopts NSS. However, the intention of Japan Prime Minister, Shinzo

Abe to amend the Article 9 of the Constitution particularly the peace clause in

order to change Japan from a „passive pacifism‟ to a „proactive pacifism‟

5

indicating that the policy is assumed as contradictive with Article 9 of Japan‟s

Constitution that has been adopted by Japan since the end of World War II.

In this case, it is not necessary for Japan to revise the Article 9 of Japan‟s

Constitution if the NSS does not violate it, but the aiming of Shinzo Abe to amend

the Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution indicating the contradiction between them.

Therefore this research is to question why Japan issues NSS even though it

contradicts with Article 9 of Japan Constitution. Hopefully this research can find

reasons of the issuance of Japan National Security Strategy. At the same time, by

knowing the reason of the issuance of Japan‟s National Security Strategy, it will

show the factors that shape the insistence of Japan in establishing NSS even if it

contradicts with the Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution.

B. Research Question

Based on the background of the research, the shift of security policy that

Japan made to establish NSS even it challenges the Article 9 of Japan‟s

Constitution becoming the focus of this research. This research analyzes factors of

the insistence of Japan in establishing National Security Strategy (NSS) even it

contradicts with Article 9 of the Japan‟s Constitution. Therefore this research will

use the following research question:

“Why does Japan issue National Security Strategy even if it

contradicts with Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution?”

6

This question becomes the main guidance for the writer in analyzing the

research. The construction of the research will be directed to help answering the

research question.

C. Research Objective

This research limits the period only on the year of 2013 when Japan

adopted its first National Security Strategy. Meanwhile, the objective of this

research is to analyze the factors that cause the insistence of Japan in establishing

NSS even if it contradicts with Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution. Therefore, this

research will not discuss about the coming incidents that can be the factors of

Japan in establishing NSS.

The writer‟s hypothesis of this case is that there are several security

challenges either internal or external that insist Japan in establishing NSS even if

it contradicts with Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution. Therefore, by doing this

research, the writer can indicate that challenges in order to answer the research

question and give contribution to the field of International Relations about

national security challenges.

D. Literature Review

The discussion about Japan National Security Strategy is not a new one. In

result, this research is based on the preceding research done by scholars in this

field. There are several researchers that had conducted research concerning with

this issue such as Tetsuo Kotani (2014) and Yamaguchi Noboru (2014).

7

Tetsuo Kotani in US-Japan Allied Maritime Strategy: Balancing the Rise

of Maritime China describes about the China‟s growing maritime power that

challenge US-Japan maritime supremacy in the Asian littoral. In the third section

of this paper, it describes Japan‟s first National Security Strategy (NSS) for

“proactive contribution to peace”, the development of Japan‟s security policy

through the establishment of a National Security Council (NSC) and the revision

of the National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG) in the case of balancing the

rise of China through strategic diplomacy and to reinforce deterrence toward

China by setting up a “dynamic joint defense force” to defend the Nansei Islands

in the southwest of the Japanese archipelago.

Meanwhile Yamaguchi Noboru in his article On the New National

Program Guidelines discusses about the issue of two key documents for Japan

national security policy; the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the new

National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG). This article focuses on the

characteristic of the new NDPG 2013 that was released along with the Japan‟s

first National Security Strategy that describing a broader context encompassing

the defense strategy. This article wants to show how the new NDPG supports the

principles of Japan‟s first NSS that encompassing a broader aspect of the defense

strategy.

In this regard, all of the studies had analyzed the issue of Japan‟s National

Security Strategy. However, they did not cover the shift of policy of the

establishment of National Security Strategy that becomes the focus of this

research. Therefore this research intends to fill the gap. Hopefully this research can

8

contribute to the development of the analysis of the issue by filling the gap

provided among the established studies.

E. Theoretical Framework

1. Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is set of priorities and precepts established by national

leaders to serve as guide lines for choosing among various courses of actions

(behavior) in specific situation as they strive to achieve their goals (Frederic S.

Pearson 1998). The study of foreign policy is to understand countries‟ actions and

behaviors towards other countries and the international environment generally

(Breuning 2007)

Foreign policy reflects the behavior or characteristic of state in pursuing its

purposes. According to Holsti, in the contemporary era, there are four foreign

policy purposes of state in common: security, autonomy, welfare and status and

prestige (Holsti 1992). This explains that every state in world has purposes in

international affairs to achieve, therefore foreign policy that issued by a state

means generating or shaping the interaction among states to fulfill their purpose.

A foreign policy of states that made has to have factors that can influence

or shape the foreign policy itself. According to Holsti a foreign policy that is made

by a state is influenced by external and internal factors (Holsti 1992). He adds that

external/systemic are all those conditions and other countries policies that impact

on one‟s own choices while internal factors are domestic political dynamic.

9

External Factors of foreign policy according to Holsti are structure of

system, characteristics/structure of world economy, purposes and actions of other

actors, global and regional problems, international law and world opinion. While

the domestic factors are socioeconomic/Security needs, geographic and

topographic, national attribute, government structure/philosophy, public opinion,

bureaucracy, and ethical considerations .

NSS is one of the forms of foreign policy. Foreign policy theory is to

answer the research question. It is important to understand the foreign policy

factors that affecting foreign policy issued by a state to another state and

implementation of the foreign policy itself.

2. National Security

There is no single accepted definition of national security by scholars or

practitioners. The overview of security is always ambiguous because everything

that concerns about security is depending on the values that pursued by individual,

group or state themselves. However, according to Hermann in his book

“American National Security”, he stated that security is the expectation of

retaining and enhancing the ability to partake of highly regarded value outcomes

free of obstruction. Furthermore, he defines national security as security with

respect to “value outcomes” desired by those who comprise the effective political

base of nation (Hermann 1982).

10

Every state has its “value outcomes” that is desired to be protected.

According to the definition from Hermann, in order to reach an effective way to

protect the national security national, a state has to know its real problem because

national security can be a dangerously ambiguous concept if used without

specification (Baldwin 1997). Furthermore, security problem that faced by a state

should be defined first as policy objective, then proceeded to specifications for

defining policies for pursuing that objective.

National security must be protected both from within and outside.

According to Buzan, the threat that can challenge national security is

distinguished between military threats, economic threats, and ecological threats

(Buzan 1983). In addition, he adds that military threats are seizure of territory,

invasion, occupation, change of government and manipulation of policy. In this

regard, the problem of this research is referred to the military threats.

In this regard the Senkaku Islands dispute is included to the military

threats that can harm the national security of Japan. That is why the writer uses

national security concept.

3. Deterrence

Deterrence is a form of persuasion in military strategy, it seeks to deter a

potential adversary from attacking a state by developing military capacity that

would make the costs of such an attack too high in comparison with any possible

advantages (Affairs 1987). In other words, deterrence strategy works once attack

11

has not begun, it is used by a state to prevent any potential attack from enemy by

threats, for example by developing military power such as the purchase of some

tanks, military planes or installing nuclear weapon.

According to Morgan in his article The State of Deterrence in

International Politics Today, deterrence is an old practice. For instance, classic

balance of power system was based on deterrence. Many alternative structures,

such as a hegemonic system, a great power concert or a collective security system,

have involved security sought and maintained by deterrence (Morgan 2012).

However the international system is set to be anarchy today where there is

no authority above states. In other words, every single state in this world has an

equal position, so that Japan and China. Therefore, if there is a state going to

attack another state, so it has to be considered by a state that another state will do

the same because it has retaliation capability. So, anarchy system is a system that

can increase the effectiveness of deterrence strategy for state to prevent a conflict.

This research uses deterrence because this concept fits the condition

between Japan and China in the term of relationship. Even as their relationship is

strained, there is no direct military conflict between them because each of them is

aware of the other retaliation capability.

F. Research Method

This research will use the qualitative method. It is the method that tends to

focus on one or a small number of cases, to use intensive interviews or depth

12

analysis of historical materials, to be discursive in method, and to be concerned

with a rounded or comprehensive account of some event or unit (Gary King 1994).

Qualitative research attempts to increase the understanding of why things are the

ways they are in our social world and why people act the ways they do (Hancock

1998).

Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social

phenomena. Qualitative research is heavily dependent on the researcher‟s analytic

and integrative skills and personal knowledge of the social context where the data

is collected (Bhattacherjee 2012). Unlike the quantitative analysis, qualitative

analysis uses more text data instead of number or statistical data. Data are used to

develop concepts and theories that help to understand the social world. This is an

inductive approach to the development of theory.

In collecting the data, the writer will use library research which includes

academic journal and books related to the case, state speech, official websites, and

newspaper. Furthermore by doing all the methods in this research, such as

collecting data, finding the facts that that can support the argument, and analyzing

data, then writer relate them to the purpose of the research that will answer the

research question above.

13

G. Research Outline


A. Background………………………………………………………………..1







Chapter II The Constitution of Japan

A. Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan 1947……………..……...…..……17

B. Japan‟s Basic Policy of National Defense…………………..……….…..18

C. The Japan-US Security Alliance…………………………………………19

D. The Establishment of Self-Defense Forces (JSDF.………………………21

1. Justification of JSDF Existence………………..…………..…….…..22

Chapter III The Establishment of Japan’s National Security Strategy (NSS)

A. National Security Strategy of Japan.……………………………………..24

B. 2010-2013 Incident………………………………………………………27

14

Chapter IV The Factors that Influence the Shift of Security Policy of Japan

A. Internal Factors…………………………………………………………...35


Security Policy…………………….………………….……...…...….35

2. Pubic Support………………………………………………………...37

B. External Factors……………………………..……………………....…...38


Senkaku Islands…………………...…………….…………...…...…..38

2. The Shift Power in Asia……………………………………………...42


15

CHAPTER II

THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN

This chapter will discuss about the fundamental military of Japan which

will encompass the constitution of Japan and the establishment of Japan Self-

Defense Force (JSDF) in order to understand how Japan got its defense-oriented

policy and JSDF as its capability of Japan‟s National Defense to protect itself

from external aggressor. In this regard, by knowing the Japan‟s defense-oriented

policy and the role of JSDF, it will provide a description of contradicted principles

between Japan defense-oriented policy with the issuance of the Japan‟s first

National Security Strategy (NSS).

The Meiji Constitution is the first modern constitution of Japan which was

enacted in 1889. When Japan was under occupation of United States following

World War II, Japan was forced to adopt a new Constitution. The current

Constitution of Japan was written in 1946 and came into effect in 1947 (Parisi

2002). The current constitution of Japan was the result of amendment to the old

constitution, Meiji Constitution. Japan therefore has a single document called the

Constitution (The Constitution: Context and History n.d.).

After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and with Russian

troops crashing into the Japanese-held territory of Manchuria in northern China,

the Japanese government finally announced its surrender in a dramatic radio

speech by Emperor Hirohito that was broadcasted throughout Japan and all over

Asia on 15 August 1945. The Emperor did not actually use the word "surrender"

16

in his radio speech; but he did state that Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam

Declaration (Shoichi 1998).

After that United States was in charge of the democratization process in

Japan. US identified that Meiji Constitution 1887 which was the fundamental

constitution of Japan as a flawed document that permitted military of Japan to take

control and lead to war (Parisi 2002). On 26 July 1945, the United States, China,

and Great Britain issued the Potsdam Declaration. According to the Potsdam

Declaration:

"The Japanese Government shall remove all

obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic

tendencies among the Japanese people. The freedom of

speech, of religion, and of thought as well as respect for

fundamental human rights shall be established (Shoichi

1998)."

Japan was forced to amend Meiji Constitution 1887 by removing all

obstacles in democracy and ensuring basic freedoms and rights (Parisi 2002).

Finally the Government of Japan (GOJ) explained the new Constitution to the

public before it became effective in May 1947.

The 1947 Constitution of Japan was acknowledged as the product of

intervention by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), General

Douglas MacArthur (Auer 1990). Following his arrival in Japan, MacArthur took

command of the Occupation forces in September 1945, he personally informed

GOJ to amend Japan existing Constitution into one based less on imperial

sovereignty and more in individual, democratic rights (San 1999). Then the

occupation personnel are directed by the authority of SCAP to join into the

constitution of Japan-making process in order to include a provision banning

17

Japan to maintain Japanese army, navy or air force for any purposes. Therefore

the draft of constitution was transmitted to the GOJ to be revised and making

interpretation for the possibility of armed forces for defensive purposes (Auer

1990).

A. Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution 1947

The Japanese fundamental military policy was the result of the application

of Article 9 of the Constitution 1947. Following the defeat of Japan, US intended

to silence Japan aggressiveness by implementing Article 9 in order to demilitarize

Japan. The main goal behind this movement by US and alliances was amendment

of Meiji Constitution to provisions renouncing war in Article 9 of Japanese

Constitution (Setsuko 2003).

The 1947 Constitution Article 9 is often called the “no war” clause. In this

article stated that Japan would not have the right to build or maintain a Japanese

Army, Navy, or Air Force, and would relinquish the right of belligerency (Gordon

1997). This meant that Japan did not have the right to use military force for any

reason, including defense. In the February 1946 draft constitution, Charles Kades,

chair of SCAP‟s constitutional committee, deleted the reference to national

defense, but broadened the prohibition against military forces and supplies (Parisi

2002).

The content of article 9 was stimulated debate among Japanese Diet

members. Most of them argued that this meant Japan could not defend itself from

attack. Some argued that self-defense is the right of nation and irrevocable.

18

Meanwhile the politicians argued that article 9 had been embraced by Japanese

people (Parisi 2002).

Following months after the debates, the final version of the “no war”

clause came out from House of Representatives of Japan:

“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based

on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce

war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use

of force as a means of settling international disputes. In

order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph,

land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will

never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state

will not be recognized.”

This article is viewed as the Japanese fundamental military policy for

Basic Policy of National Defense of Japan where Japan was not allowed to

maintain its army, navy, or air force for the sake of offensive purpose, but in this

regard Japan was still allowed to maintain its military for self-defense purpose.

B. Japan’s Basic Policy of National Defense

10 years after announcement of the Constitution 1947, The Basic Policy

for National Defense was adopted by Cabinet in May 1957. According to an

“Overview of Japan‟s Defense Policy” from Japan Ministry of Defense, there are

four basic policies of national defense. First, Support the United Nations‟

Activities and promote international cooperation to achieve world peace. Second,

stabilize the people‟s livelihood and establish the foundations for national security.

Third, establish effective defense capabilities. Fourth, defend the nation on the

19

basis of the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements (Fundamental Concepts of

National Defense n.d.).

Further, in the article explained other fundamental policies of Japan in

accordance with the Basic Policy for National Defense (1957). Japan has been

ever building up a moderate defense capability on its own initiative in accordance

with the fundamental principles of maintaining, first exclusively Defense-Oriented

Policy. Second, not becoming a military power that might pose a threat to other

countries. Third, observing the Three Non-Nuclear Principles (Not possessing

nuclear weapons; not producing nuclear weapons; not permitting nuclear weapons

to be brought to Japan). Last, securing civilian control (Fundamental Concepts of

National Defense n.d.). These principles have, in turn, been elaborated in

subsequent years through a series of defense plans and programs offered by the

Self-Defense Agency.

C. The Japan-US Security Alliance

In 1951, Japan finally managed to sign a peace treaty in San Francisco

with most of the countries of the world. The Allied occupation ended when this

treaty took effect on 28 April, 1952, and the Japanese Constitution became the

supreme law of the land (except for Okinawa, where the United States had

maintained occupation because of the military bases, until it was returned to Japan

in 1972) (The Constitution: Context and History n.d.). On the same day the Japan-

United States Mutual Security Treaty (Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security

20

between the United States and Japan) to oblige the United States to cooperate in

defense of Japan and to allow the United States to station military forces in Japan

even after the end of the occupation.

The security treaty was renegotiated in 1960 with a more fair agreement.

This agreement, like the original, called for the U.S. military to defend Japan if

attacked and only required the JSDF to provide basic national defense for Japan in

the case of an attack. Other policies coming out of this time that affect the JSDF

include its prohibition against collective defense and the acquisition of nuclear

capabilities (Yuki 2008). In 1967, following the adoption of the Three Non-

Nuclear Principles, Japan has relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for extended

deterrence. Through this treaty, while Japan relied on US for its security needs,

Japan could focus on recovering its economic conditions after the defeat in World

War II (Xu 2014)

The Japan-US security alliance had become one of the region‟s most

important military relationships and as an anchor of the US security role in Asia.

After the revised of security treaty between Japan and US in 1960, US forces

would remain in Japan after Japan regained its sovereignty. Since the

establishment of Japan-US Alliance, US was keen on keeping its presence in

Japan to bolster its strategic presence in East Asia (Xu 2014).

In this regard, due to the interpretation of Japan‟s Constitution to prevent

the overseas deployment of Japanese troops, Japan played a bit of military role

within alliance. Accordingly, as a return, US used Japan military bases as

21

deployment of the US forces in Asia. In this case, US once used Japanese bases

for combat operation during the Vietnam War (Xu 2014).

D. The Establishment of Japan-Self Defense Forces (JSDF)

Over the last half century Japan actively has played a significant role

economically in Asia and globally. Since Japan has the third largest economy in

the world and a strong ally of the United States, therefore Japan plays an

important role in the world politics (Pettibon 2011). Through JSDF, Japan

actively participates in many international operations. Since 1990, the JSDF has

been involved in maritime minesweeping operations in the Persian Gulf,

peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1991, Mozambique in 1993 and East

Timor in 2002. It also has participated in humanitarian/disaster relief operations

such as in Iraq in 2004 and Indonesia in 2005 (Chanlett-Avery and Konishi 2009).

The initial form of JSDF was the National Police Reserve (NPR) which

was establish in 1950 under the occupation of General Douglas MacArthur during

the Allied occupation of Japan. Gradually there were changes of name of JSDF.

NPR became the National Safety Force in 1952 and finally in 1954 to the

Japanese Self-Defense Force. The last naming was authorized under the protection

of the 1954 Self-Defense Force Law. In the same time the Japanese Defense

Agency was established through the passage of the law (Yuki 2008).

There were many occurrences in the process of the establishment of the

JSDF. The establishment of JSDF was the effort symbol of the Government of

Japan in fulfilling the right of country to defend itself which was contradicted with

22

the Article 9 that demanded a demilitarization of Japan for any purposes. The

history the process of authorization of JSDF will show how Japan established

JSDF even though it was contradicted with Article 9.

1. Justification of JSDF Existence

The Japanese Government, when explaining the new Constitution to the

public before it became effective in May 1947, stated that all armed force was

outlawed for all purposes. The Constitution has not been amended thus far, yet

SCAP ordered Japan to form a 75,000-man National Police Reserve in 1950,

which became the National Safety Forces in 1952 and the Self-Defense Forces in

1954 (Auer 1990). However, the establishment of the Self Defense Force was the

result of the debate among the Japanese Diet Members. The ambiguity of the

article left the space to be debated all the time over the “no war” clause of the

article.

The most celebrated section of the 1947 Constitution is Article 9, often

called the “no war” clause. It became a very important event for the history of

international law where a big country such Japan renounced war as its sovereign

right and denied itself from maintaining armed force or the threat of force as a

means of settling international disputes. The straightforward words that used in

Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution generated various interpretations which pointed

to the Article since its implementation. However, no objection is raised by the

Constitution to the right of Japan as an independent nation to defend itself from

any foreign invasion (Scully and Hicks 1981).

23

In December 1959, the Japanese Supreme Court stated that the pacifism

defined under the Constitution does not mean that it stipulated non-defense or

non-resistance on the part of Japan. Based on statement of the introduction of the

Constitution, stated that “all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace,

free from fear and want”. In this regard, according to Defense of Japan by

Defense Agency of Japan responded to the statement,

“It was not justifiable to consider the Constitution

as prohibiting the maintenance by Japan of the minimum

required level of preparedness against situations in which

the people‟s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as

guaranteed by the Constitution are seriously endangered”

(Defense Agency of Japan, 1978).

So, in order to achieve the goal of Japan‟s Constitution such as defined on

the introduction, the capability of the Japan‟s National Defense was needed as

long as it was used for self-defense, while if any action that exceeding this limited

capability of the Japan‟s National Defense was strictly prohibited.

After long debate and consideration, in 1950s, the authorization of JSDF

existence was finally authorized because although the constitution denied Japan‟s

right of military force, it was not denied the right to defend itself if attacked by an

external aggressor. This provided the justification for the existence of the JSDF,

but it still reminded that Japan was not allowed to use military force to settle

down international disputes and to engage in collective self-defense (Yuki 2008).

24

CHAPTER III

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JAPAN NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

(NSS)

A. National Security Strategy of Japan

National Security Strategy (NSS) of Japan was established along with the

new National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG) as well as the Mid-Term

Defense Program 2014-2019 on 17th

December, 2013. The NSS provides the main

guidelines of Japan‟s national security for the next decades in the term of areas of

seas, outer spaces and energy. By NSS, Japan also promoted a better

understanding of the country‟s strategic objectives and responses both

domestically and internationally (Atanassova 2014).

The NSS is the result of government efforts to formulate a comprehensive

and integrated approach to national security. The establishment of NSS was

through debate for years on the constitution of Japan particularly Article 9. In the

late of 2012, after Shinzo Abe became Prime Minister of Japan, Abe intended to

amend the Japanese Constitution, especially the peace clause:

“…country renounces to the possibility of war as a

mean of settling international disputes and prohibits the

presence of armed forces and other war potential and also

renounce threat or use of force as a sovereign right in order

to maintain international peace and security” (Logos 2013).

In addition, based on the emerging principle of „proactive contributor to

peace‟ in the NSS document, Abe also intends to move Japan towards collective

25

self-defense (Yuzawa 2014). During the first year of his second term in office

2013, Abe proposed a move from “passive pacifism” to a “proactive pacifism”

that encourages Japan to contribute more proactively to world peace and

international cooperation (Takahashi 2014).

The content of NSS deals with Japan‟s national interest that covers not

only defense, it also includes other fields such as the economy, energy, resources

and information technology, but generally it. It comprises three sections opened

by defining the principles that guide Japan‟s security policy.

1) It discuss about the need of Japan to be more proactive to maintain

international peace and stability. This part refers to the key phrase of

“proactive contribution to peace” based on the principle of international

cooperation.

2) This section discusses about the security challenges facing Japan in both

global and regional. Further, the document explains that the global security

challenges including dramatic shifts in the balance of power, the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and risks to the

global commons. While at the regional security challenges including

North‟s Korea nuclear weapon and ballistic missile capabilities as well as

China‟s growing military power and its expansionist tendencies.

3) It discusses about the elaboration to make a proactive contribution and to

handle mentioned national security challenges including strengthening the

capabilities of its diplomatic institutions, developing an effective joint

defence force, promoting joint development and production of defense

26

equipment, increasing the effectiveness of Japan–US security cooperation,

deepening political and security cooperation with like-minded countries

and strengthening Japan‟s commitment to UN-related activities (Yuzawa

2014).

At the same time, the government of Japan also issued NDPG which

specifically deals with Japan‟s defense posture for the next decade (Hornung

2013). In the third section of NDPG on Japan‟s Basic Defense Policy introduced a

new concept „Dynamic Joint Defense Force‟ with emphasis on “defense posture

buildup in the southwestern region” states that in order to deal with invasion of

remote islands (Nansei Shoto), SDF will develop full amphibious capability. The

new NDPG also emphasizing the particular region by stating that “defense posture

buildup in the southwestern region” where SDF is be able to utilized by

capabilities to ensure “maritime and air superiority, which is the prerequisite for

effective deterrence and response in various situation” and capabilities to “deploy

and maneuver forces” (Noboru 2014).

In achieving the goal of the realization of the NSS and NDGP, it is shown

up by the increase military spending budget in the last three years from 2010-2013.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has approved 92.6 trillion yen for the fiscal year on

April 2013, has marked an increase of 0.8 % from 2012 and the first increase in

defence spending after 10 consecutive years of decline. Military spending is

projected to rise by more than 2.5% (to ¥4.81 trillion) in FY 2014. In 2010, the

DPJ-led administration earmarked ¥23.5 trillion (US$227 billion) for the 2011-

2016 five-year defence programme. For its part, the Abe administration‟s Mid-

27

term Defence Programme for 2014-2019 projects a five-year defence spending of

¥24.7 trillion (US$240 billion). This will constitute a 5% increase to the military

budget over five years (Atanassova 2014).

A. 2010-2013 Incidents

There are several incidents happening in Japan in the last 3 years. These

incidents can shape the way of Japan in viewing or responding its national

security challenge. Therefore they can become the consideration of Japan in

establishing the right foreign policy to secure its national interest in the region or

to protect its national security.

1. Crash between Chinese Fishing Trawler and Japan Coast Guard

Vessel (JCG)

On September 11th

, 2010, the Chinese fishing trawler Minjinyu 5179 with

15 crews entered the territorial water of the Senkaku Islands and crashed with

JCG vessel that were trying to chase them away. This incident was ended by the

prison of the captain of Chinese, Zhan Qixiong (Drifte 2013). Unsurprisingly, the

arrest of Chinese captain by Japan generated the reaction from Chinese

government.

Following the arrest of the crew by Japanese government, the next day,

Chinese government demanded the release of the crew and the trawler. Then on

September 13th

, the Japanese government released the crew but still kept the

captain in prison for about a month (Yuki 2008).

28

This incident linked the Japanese to other Chinese sanctions which

increased the tension of Japan-China diplomatic relationship. After the arrest of

the Chinese fishing trawler, the Chinese government had cancelled the second

round of the negotiations for the implementation of the understanding on energy

cooperation in the East China Sea established on June 18th

, 2008. (Drifte

2013)Then, another sanctions from Chinese government for Japan was the

prohibition of rare earth exports to Japan which the country‟s high technology

industry is very dependent indicated by the Japan as the biggest importer and the

detention of Japanese businessmen in China (Yuki 2008).

2. Nationalization of Three Senkaku Islands by Government of Japan

For 20 billion yens, the Japanese Government under the Prime Minister

Yoshihiko Noda announced that the purchase of three islands (Uotsuri-jima, Kita-

kojima and Minami-kojima) in the Senkaku Islands from the private landowner in

September 2012 (Yuki 2008). The intension of Japanese Government on

purchasing the islands started on April 16th

, 2012, Tokyo Governor Ishihara

Shintaro stated that the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) was negotiating

the purchase of three from four privately owned by the Kurihara family over

Senkaku Islands by the end of the year.

The government of Japan purchased for a total of Y2.05 billion (£16.4

million) for the islands from the Kurihara family, which are in the East China Sea

off Japan's Okinawa Prefecture but are claimed by both China and Taiwan. The

policy from Japanese government to buy the privately owned islands immediately

29

brought strong reactions from Chinese government after the announcement of the

purchase. Following the Japanese government‟s announcement of the purchase,

the anti-Japanese protest that already spreading after Ishihara‟s announcement to

purchase the islands had worsened. (Yuki 2008).

3. Military Confrontation in the Senkaku Islands

Japan-China relationship over the Senkaku Islands dispute had reached to

the new height level of tension. The involvement of military in the incidents

indicated the greater risk that an incident of this kind can escalate into actual

clashes between two militaries. The most serious consequences for current issue

were the constant intrusions of Chinese official vessels into the Contiguous Zone

(CZ) or Territorial Water (TW) of the Senkaku Islands since September 2012 and

the growing of the armed forces from both sides (Drifte 2013).

Since Ishihara‟s announcement of the purchase of three privately owned

islands by Japan government, accordingly, the activities of China Marine

Surveillance (CMS) and Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC) vessels

had increasing. Furthermore, for the first time, Chinese State Oceanic

Administration (SOA)‟ aircraft entered into the Japanese airspace over the

Senkaku Islands in December 2012 (Drifte 2013)

On January 30th

, 2013, fire control (FC) radar of People‟s Liberation Army

Navy (PLAN) frigate locked-on Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)‟s

destroyer Yudaichi in East China Sea. This report announced by Japan Minister of

Defense Itsunori Onodera on February 5th

, 2013. The announcement of Japan

30

Minister of Defense was followed by a strong statement by Prime Minister Shinzo

Abe who stated “dangerous action that could have brought about an unexpected

situation” (Yuki 2008).

4. The Establishment of ADIZ by Government of China

On November 2 , 2013, China declared the establishment of Air

Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). China argue that the establishment of ADIZ

was based on the Law of the People‟s Republic of China on National Defense, the

Law of the People‟ Republic of China on Civil Aviation, and the Basic Rules on

Flight of the People‟s Republic of China. The zone includes the airspace that

covers not only Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone but also the disputed Senkaku

Islands (Paul 2014).

Figure 2. Map of Japan and China ADIZ (Park 2013)

31

The unilateral act of the establishment of ADIZ by Chinese government

covers four aspects that becoming an issue. First, it covers Japan's Senkaku

Islands, which China claims under the name Daiyou. Second, it includes the

waters between Japan and Taiwan. Third, it requires aircraft flying through it to

provide information, regardless of whether they are China-bound. Fourth, it has

been accompanied by renewed speculation about a similar move in the South

China Sea.

The unilateral establishment of China‟s ADIZ over two-third of the East

China Sea caused a huge amount of overlap with China‟s neighbors including

Japan, South Korea and US. The overlapping area covered by China‟s ADIZ is

not only the Senkaku Islands but also some joint training airspace between US Air

Force and Japan Air Self-Defense Force. Japan argued that the unilateral act by

China to change the status quo in the East China Sea will escalate the situation

and may cause unintended consequences (Osawa 2013).

Following the declaration, Japan responses by condemning China‟s

declaration of ADIZ and stated that “It is totally unacceptable for Japan”. The

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe added that “retract the decision otherwise it could lead

to an unexpected event”. In addition, In October Japan declared that any foreign

drones that intrude into Japanese airspace will be intercepted and shot down if

ignore initial warnings to leave. Japan considered ADIZ as encroachment in

Japan‟s sovereignty over the disputed territory of Senkaku Islands in East China

Sea (Paul 2014).

32

Consequently the establishment of China‟s ADIZ on 23rd

November, 2013

was followed by the announcement of Japanese‟s first National Security Strategy

and military spending several weeks later. The establishment of China‟s ADIZ is

considered as a threat by Japanese government, the Prime Minister of Japan,

Shinzo Abe said that the strategy (NSS) is a measured and logical response to a

real and increasing threat (Wingfield-Hayes 2013). This happened because the

zone includes the airspace that covers not only Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone

but also the disputed Senkaku Islands (Paul 2014).

33

CHAPTER IV

THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE SHIFT OF SECURITY

POLICY OF JAPAN

Since the implementation of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan 1947,

Japan has been becoming a pacifist state which means that Japan should leave

military force for any reason. However on 17th

December, 2013, Japan issued its

first National Security Strategy which is assumed as Japan new approach over the

national security with its purposes that elaborated in document is a new policy

that never been adopted by Japan for more than 60 years since the end of World

War II. Moreover, the intention of Japan Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe to amend

the Article 9 of the Constitution particularly the peace clause in order to change

Japan from a „passive pacifism‟ to a „proactive pacifism‟ and the increase of Japan

military defense spending budget for the last three years in indicating the

reformation of Japan‟s Basic Policy of National Defense.

At some points in the document of NSS, it states:

“The first objective is to strengthen the deterrence

necessary for maintaining its peace and security and for

ensuring its survival, thus deterring threats from directly

reaching Japan; at the same time, if by any chance a threat

should reach Japan, to defeat such threat and to minimize

the damage”

Meanwhile in the document of NDPG emphasis the capability of Japan to

deploy its JSDF to a collective defense (implication of Dynamic Joint Defense

Force) in order to secure its territorial integrity. At the same time it indicates the

34

first possible use of japan military component of their national security. In this

regard, according to the Constitution of Japan, in Article 9 “….people forever

renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as

means of settling international disputes…”, it was forbidden for Japan not only to

use military component but also to maintain it.

Furthermore, the establishment of NSS aims to protect Japan‟s national

security from external aggressor, especially China. Based on the recent incidents,

China is the most challenging threat for Japan‟s national security in the case of

China rising military power and border dispute. In other words Japan tries to deter

China from threatening its territorial integrity. That is why, even though the

establishment of the NSS contradicts with Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution, it

insisted to establish the policy.

Therefore, it is important to analyze deeper on Japan‟s insistence in

establishing the NSS as Japan foreign policy. In fact, there are several factors

which affect the establishment of the NSS. These factors made realization of the

establishment of the NSS even if contradicted with Article 9 of Japan‟s

Constitution.

The overview of the establishment of Japan National Security Strategy is

to give understanding of the case. Furthermore, in order to answer the research

question which is “Why does Japan issue National Security Strategy (NSS)

even if it is contradicted with the Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution?” the

writer will provide both internal and external factors as the reference to build an

analytical answer from the data which has been elaborated in the previous

35

chapters in order to find the reasons and motivation of Japan issuing its first

National Security Strategy. The internal factors base of the factors which came

from the condition in Japan itself, while the external factors base to the factors

came from the condition out of Japan.

A. Internal Factors


Security Policy

Shinzo Abe (58) is a Japanese politician born on September 21st, 1954.

Abe became the first youngest Prime Minister since World War II. He came into

the office as Prime Minister of Japan for second periods (2006-2007 and 2012- ).

He is son of Abe Shintaro who was Japanese politician in 1980s era; he is also

grandson of the nationalist Kishi Nobosuke who was arrested as a suspected war

criminal after World War II but never charged, was also Prime Minister of Japan

in period 1957-1960 (Edstorm 2007).

He won his first set in parliament in 1993 and then went on to become

deputy cabinet secretary. He was appointed to the cabinet for the first time in

October 2005 and then a year later he became Prime Minister of Japan in 2006. In

the early days of his leadership he scored a number of political hits, achieving a

high-level rapprochement with China and winning local support with a tough line

on North Korea. However, a series of scandals and gaffes made his approval

ratings fell dramatically. Consequently this heavy loss for his ruling LDP in upper

36

house elections in July 2007 made him deciding to resign. Therefore, in

September of that year he stepped down from becoming Prime Minister of Japan

(BBC 2012).

Elected as Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) leader in September 2012, he

returned to Japan‟s political stage, quickly stressing on his desire to take back a

seat economically and diplomatically from China. He also expressed a strong

stance on territorial disputes with China and South Korea. On December 16th

,

2012, he led the LDP won the election by securing a majority in the lower house,

defeating the ruling Democratic Party (DP) (BBC 2012). He came into office as

the Prime Minister of Japan for second times on December 26th

, 2012 by ending

three years rule of liberal administration and bringing back to power the

conservative (Talmadge 2012).

The Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe is viewed as a key figure of

Japan‟s ideological conservative right. Since his first period as prime minister, he

strongly has been proposing to amend the constitution, especially Article 9

(Talmadge 2012). Abe argued that Japan cannot fulfill its obligations collective

security agreements and within the UN without a normal military force.

Consequently the amendment of Japan‟s Constitution is to rewrite Article 9 by

liming the renunciation of war and stating only Japan that refrains from the use of

force to settle international disputes (Traphagan 2013). Under his administration,

Japan for the first time adopted NSS which is viewed as the first official policy

document that implies the government‟s intention to exercise the right to

37

collective self-defense that in which this policy violates the Article 9 of Japan‟s

Constitution.

2. Public Support

The purpose of Abe administration to amend the Japanese Constitution is

not supported by the whole Japanese people. Japan is surrounded by public

debates concerning with aim of government to make significant changes to the

Japanese Constitution. For the first place, in order to make easier changes, Abe

planned to start the process of making Constitutional changes in Article 96 to

loosen the amendment process. Meanwhile the main purpose is to change Article

9, the renunciation of war imposed upon japan by the Constitution‟s American

authors during the Occupation following WWII (Traphagan 2013).

At the core of the debate between proponents and opponents is whether

Japan should change Article 9 which the nation has no armed forces except a self-

defense force. The proponents argued that armed forces are a component of

virtually all other major countries while opponents, either domestically and

internationally, argued that it could return Japan to what they see as its militarist

past. The international opposition has been especially from Korea and China

(Mochizuki 2013)

According to polls released as the country marked Constitutional

Memorial Day, more than half of the Japanese public believes that the nation‟s

postwar constitution should be changed. Among the various polls in local media

Friday, the Nikkei newspaper found that 56% said they thought the constitution

38

should be changed. The daily said 28% of respondents didn't think it should be

changed, marking the first time in eight years that this figure has dropped below

30%. Another poll by the Mainichi Shimbun showed similar sentiment among the

public, with 60% supporting constitutional overhaul and 32% opposed. The gap

has widened since the Nikkei posed the same question in April 2012, when 53%

of those polled supported a revision and 33% were opposed (Mochizuki 2013).

In this regard, the revision of Article 9 is supported by both Japanese

people and parliament. This is the second times of Shinzo Abe becoming Prime

Minister of Japan who has been committing to make significant changes to Article

9 of Japan‟s Constitution since his first period becoming Prime Minister in 2006-

2007. Therefore it is impossible for Shinzo Abe to become Prime Minister for the

second times if the idea of revising Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution is rejected by

parliament. Moreover, in his second period of election, Shinzo Abe won the

support of 328 members of the total seat 480, more than half of total seat. So it

can be said that the idea of Shinzo Abe is similar with the majority notion.

B. External Factors


Senkaku Islands

The Senkaku Islands dispute is concerning with a territorial dispute

between Asia‟s two biggest powers, Japan and China, over a group of uninhabited

islands in East China Sea known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan and Daiyou

39

Islands in China. The dispute came into surface started by the discovery of

ECAFE about the potential natural resources around the islands in 1969 (Pinem

2013).

Figure 1. Map of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (Centanni 2013)

Japan bases its sovereignty claim over the islands since were admitted as

uninhabited islands (terra nullius) in 1895 and had been continuously occupying

the islands since then (Septyoko n.d.). Meanwhile the claim of China over the

islands came only on December 1971 (Reedman 2006).

The Senkaku Islands dispute between Japan and China is one of the most

significant factors that make the condition of bilateral relationship between Japan

and China worsened today. The dispute over the islands is bringing many

40

incidents in the last years between two countries. The arguments toward the

claims over the islands from both sides worsened the condition. At the last it has

affected the diplomatic relationship between Japan and China.

The increasing tension between Japan-China relations over the Senkaku

Islands dispute escalates the military involvement in the surrounding water of the

Senkaku Islands. In the third chapter presented several incidents happening

between Japan and China that involved the military power. Obviously the

escalations of military involvements are challenges for both national securities in

the case of territorial sovereignty, at the same time if it let continuing, it will

generate the greater risk that can lead to the real war. The following are incidents

that indicate the military involvement of Japan and China over the Senkaku

Islands dispute.

First, the crash between Japanese Coastal Guard vessel and Chinese

fishing trawler in 2010 that ended with the prison of the captain of Chinese, Zha

Qixiong (Drifte 2013). Second, Since December 2012, the activities of China

Marine Surveillance (CMS) and Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC)

vessel were increasing and for the first time, Chinese State Oceanic

Administration (SOA)‟ aircraft entered into the Japanese airspace. And the last on

January 30th

, 2013, fire control (FC) radar of People‟s Liberation Army Navy

(PLAN) frigate locked-on Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)‟s

destroyer Yudaichi in East China Sea (Yuki 2008).

In the third chapter, it was presented that the establishment of ADIZ is a

unilateral act which means that China in making a decision to decide the China‟s

41

ADIZ does not involve its neighbor countries in the discussion. So, if China‟s

ADIZ covers other countries‟ ADIZ, it will contest the territories of other

countries. In this regard, the China‟s ADIZ overlaps with ADIZ maintained by

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Moreover, for Japan, the ADIZ claimed by China

overlaps with the disputed Senkaku Islands. In this regard, according to Buzan in

his book People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International

Relations, the establishment of China‟s ADIZ which overlaps with Japan territory

including the disputed Senkaku Islands is considered as military threat that can

challenge the national security of Japan.

These incidents just happen in the last decade which never happened

before. It has reached to the new level of tension between Japan and China. Based

on the fact that the effective administered the Senkaku Islands of Japan since 1895

and history based-claim of China towards these Islands, Japan until today never

admitted the existence of dispute over the Senkaku Islands. In this regard, Japan

wants to close the chance of negotiation between Japan and China, if Japan

declares that the Senkaku Islands are in the crisis, so indirectly Japan admitted

that the Senkaku Islands are part of China.

In this regard, the actions of China intruding other countries‟ territorial

sovereignty are unrespectable actions. There are two possibilities that can cause

the fearlessness of China in challenging Japan‟s territory to the current level of

challenge, the rising power of China and the weakening power of Japan-US

alliance. It is not surprisingly that since the US weak recovery of economic crisis,

China in 2010 became the world‟s second-largest economy. With this influence,

42

China gives a certain pressure to Japan as long as they have economic relation

swhich China as one of the biggest Japan‟s markets. Meanwhile, the absence of

US military involvement over China intruding Japan‟s territory shows the

weakening of Japan-US alliance.

2. Power Shift in Asia

For more than decades since the end of World War II, the East Asian

regional order had been dominated by the presence of US and Japan, however

with the rise of China, the East Asian regional order is undergoing major power

shift. China is becoming aggressive over its maritime territorial claims in the East

China and South China seas. Japan-China diplomatic relations are repeatedly

strained over the territorial crisis in the Senkaku Islands dispute (Goswami 2013).

This absolutely becomes a challenge for the Japan-US security alliance as military

relationship and the US security role in Asia.

China is seen as the rising power in the Asia. China wants its influence

achieving to the rest of the world. China is now focusing on military

modernization and to protect its own territory and acquire options for the long-

distance projection of power (Hannesson 2009). According to the Stockholm

International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2011, China has already

become the second largest military spender, with a total spending of US $143

billion in 2011. It has been shown by the rapid changes within the People‟s

Liberation Army (PLA), with a growing focus on rapid deployment and small

military units (Goswami 2013).

43

China has a capability to spread its influence in both region and global

level. China has a nuclear power, it is a permanent member of the United Nations

Security Council, and its economic growth is predicted to overtake the US

economy in this century. These powers of China both soft and hard power will put

China in the position that challenging the balance of power in East Asia

(Hannesson 2009). The rising power of China will eventually give threats to its

neighbors including the US security role in Asia.

This power shift happening in the East Asia region will changes the

overall incentive structures and bargaining mechanism in East Asia region.

Moreover, the fact is Japan and China bilateral relations are in high tension

concerning with the Senkaku Islands dispute in East China Sea that has not

resolved yet. In this regard, according to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and

Security in 1960, US are demanded to give visible security guarantee to Japan and

other allies in the region to counter China. In the other hand, it will take more cost

to give visible military projections in East Asia by the US due to the rapid military

modernization of China (Goswami 2013).

Responding to this issue, in 2012, the government of US formally

published its “Pivot to East Asia Strategy” or re-balancing US policy. This policy

represents a significant shift of US foreign policy from focusing in the Middle

East towards Asia (Bush 2012). The main purposes of US pivot is to reaffirm and

strengthen cooperative ties with China; and to establish a strong and credible

American presence across Asia to both encourage constructive Chinese behavior

44

and to provide confidence to other countries in the region that they need not yield

to potential Chinese regional hegemony (Lieberthal 2011)

This policy of US will bring a new hope for US allies in the region

including Japan. According to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security in

1960, the Article 5 of the treaty said

"Each Party recognizes that an armed attack

against either Party in the territories under the

administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own

peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the

common danger in accordance with its constitutional

provisions and processes."

Consequently, the US would be obligated to involve in the Japan‟s

security defense (Keating 2012). In this case, referring to the highly tension

between Japan and China, especially in the case of the Senkaku Islands dispute, if

Japan finally comes to the war with China, so it means that US is obligated to

intervene on Japan‟s behalf.

According to these facts that the policy of US „pivot‟ and the Treaty of

Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and US, the security of Japan

should be guaranteed enough to counter the external threats. However, the

establishment of NSS and Japan‟s recent push to upgrade its defense preparedness

has all challenged the alliance's resilience as the US strategic pivot to the Asia-

Pacific region. It was shown up by the increase if military spending budget in the

last three years from 2010-2013. Apparently, the establishment of NSS that

allowed Japan to use military power by a collective self-defense in settling down

international dispute even though it contradicts with the Article 9 of Japan‟s

45

Constitution is a policy that taken by the government to ensure the security by

itself and not depending much on US.

46

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

On 17th

December, 2013, Japan for the first time under the adopted the

“National Security Strategy (NSS)” approved along with the new “National

Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG)” and “Mid-term Defense Program” which

were based on the NSS. The NSS sets out Japan‟s fundamental military policies

concerning with national security, focusing on diplomatic policy and defense

policy. Based on the principle of international cooperation, the NSS presents the

policy of “proactive contribution to peace”. In this regard, Japan tries to achieve

the security of Japan as well as peace and stability in both region and global level

based on the fundamental principle of national security.

NSS is the first official policy document that implies the government‟s

intention to exercise the right to collective self-defense. “Proactive contribution to

peace” becomes the key phrase in the document of NSS. The phrase of “proactive

contributor to peace” reflects Abe‟s desire to expand Japan‟s military role,

especially in UN related missions and within the framework of the Japan–US

alliance by recognizing the nation‟s right to collective self-defense.

Since the end of the post-World War II, Japan had been adopting defense-

oriented policy as its fundamental military policy which is written in the

Constitution of Japan, not becoming a military power and observing the Three

Non-Nuclear Principles. Then Japan developed Self Defense Force (SDF) which

is for Japanese internal security and committed not to be deployed abroad. This

47

policy is followed by making up alliance with the United States in order to

maintain its security and contribute to peace and stability in international world.

However, the intention of Japan Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe to amend the

Article 9 of the Constitution particularly the peace clause in order to change Japan

from a „passive pacifism‟ to a „proactive pacifism‟ indicating that the policy is

assumed as contradictive with Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution that has been

adopted by Japan since the end of World War II. In this case, it is not necessary

for Japan to revise the Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution if the NSS does not

violate it, but the aiming of Shinzo Abe to amend the Article 9 of Japan‟s

Constitution indicating the contradiction between them. Therefore this research is

to question why Japan issues NSS even though it contradicts with Article 9 of

Japan Constitution. Hopefully this research can find reasons of the issuance of

Japan National Security Strategy. At the same time, by knowing the reason of the

issuance of Japan‟s National Security Strategy, it will show the factors that shape

the insistence of Japan in establishing NSS even if it contradicts with the Article 9

of Japan‟s Constitution.

In addition, according to the objective of this research which is to

determine the reasons why Japan issues its NSS even though it is contradicted

with Article 9 of Japan‟s Constitution, there are factors that contribute to the

establishment of Japan‟s National Security Strategy (NSS); first, the Prime

Minister of Shinzo Abe who is assumed as key figure of second, public support

which Japanese people supporting the revision of Article 9 of Japan‟s

Constitution; third, the escalation of military involvement in the surrounding of

48

the Senkaku Islands; fourth, the shift power in Asia. Considering to all these

factors, the shift of security policy that made Japan establishing NSS is to depart

from post-war regime and to be more dependent in defending itself.

In summary, The National Security Strategy (NSS) that adopted by Japan

is indicating the evolving security condition in the region that threat Japan‟s

national security. Japan is no longer being able to secure its own security and

stability by relying on the principle of passive pacifism or its security alliance

relationship with US. In the effort of protecting its national security, Japan

increases its national military spending budget and strengthens its cooperation

with US as an effective deterrence for maintaining peace. The purpose of the

establishment of NSS is not to remilitarize Japanese power in order to be

offensive, but to maintain peace and security to ensure its survival, in doing so,

keeping Article 9 unchanged is essentially hypocritical and it makes sense to bring

the Constitution in line with the reality of contemporary Japan and the rather

liberal interpretation they have developed for Article 9.

THE STUDY ON JAPAN NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY AS A …repository.uinjkt.ac.id › dspace ›...

Documents

Transcript of THE STUDY ON JAPAN NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY AS A …repository.uinjkt.ac.id › dspace ›...