I need 12 pages due 48 jours

1

Japan’s devastating defeat in the World War II, after bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima,

left little hope for the country’s successful future. However, Japan amazed the world community by

its phenomenal ability of taking new direction in its development principles and accomplishing its

present status of the second largest economy in the world after the US only. The recuperation of

Japan after World War II started with the efforts of American-led Allied forces under the supervision

of General MacArthur whose primary targeted goals were demilitarization and democratization of

the country (Green 2001).

After the war Japan committed itself to the new plan of transformations and particularly, to

the idea of demilitarization. Since the end of the World War II, Japan has not been involved in any

military action, and its position of a pacifist state was officially formulated under the Article 9 of

Constitution “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” (Hayes 2005, 295). Despite all these changes, Japan’s Asian

neighbors still view the former as a distrustful country which will eventually revive its aggressive

nature. These Asian countries are not willing to erase the memories of atrocities committed by Japan

before and during the war (Li 2007).

There are various controversial aspects in the domestic and international politics of Japan that

make its Asian neighbors’ skepticism justified. The main contradiction is connected with Japan’s

foreign policy and the Article 9 of the Constitution. Although Japan is committed to non-

militarization and to bilateral relationships with the US, it has been developing military resources and

has been exhibiting trends toward multilateralism (Green 2001).

Another compelling reason that Japan still lacks trust in the region is the widespread

distortion of historical facts in the national textbooks of Japan about the events during and before the

war (Ienega 1993-1994). It is aimed to hide the reality of crimes committed by Japanese, and those

textbooks are approved by the government. This issue has sparked numerous debates and tensions

2

between Japan and Eastern Asian countries. One such event took place in April 2005 in Beijing with

thousands of demonstrators in front of Japanese Embassy (Collins 2005).

There is also the aspect of Japan’s immigration regulations. Japan is very strict not only with

immigrants who live in the country for decades but also with immigrants who are newcomers. The

last legislation that was approved in November 2007 became the culmination of the whole

legislation. According to the new immigration law, all foreigners entering and leaving Japan are

subject to a rigorous inspection process, involving fingerprinting and photographic identification.

The government has justified this to its own citizens as an anticrime measure and to the United States

as an antiterrorism measure, however many believe that this is an obvious step to revival of Japanese

xenophobia (Fackler 2007).

As such, I have detected at least three major aspects that Japan needs to concentrate on and

make improvements in order to enhance its image in the region of East Asia. Though Japan has

officially declared its demilitarization and desire to reconcile the relationships with its neighbor

countries, in reality it has not adhered to those rulings, and it has led Japan not to be perceived as

truly willing to disconnect itself from its historical practices. Japan will not be able to improve its

image among its neighbors unless it makes constructive transformations in its official foreign policy

approach. Its rulings about its military status that will be in accordance to the actuality, eliminating

the distortion of historical facts in the official textbooks and development of more liberal

immigration laws, will demonstrate that Japan is positively predisposed to the idea of cultural

pluralism.

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the reasons for the distrustful attitudes of East Asian

nations toward Japan, to propose a possible study to affirm those assumptions, and to make a number

of policy recommendations. In the literature review section, I will present views of academics on the

evolution of Japan’s role regionally and internationally and their beliefs for why Japan still has

problems with of integration in the region. Subsequently, I will present my hypotheses regarding the

3

issues that impede Japan’s relations among its neighboring countries. In the Methodology section, I

will define independent and dependent variables conceptually and operationally, suggesting research

techniques that will be appropriate to collect data for the defined variables. Finally, in the

conclusion, I will make my policy recommendations and will elaborate on the contributions of the

study to the academic understanding of international affairs.

Literature Review

Japan’s diplomatic status in the world and especially in the region of East Asia has been in

the center of scholars’ attention since Japan’s commitment to pacifist ideas and recognition of the US

as its guide in foreign policy decisions. There is a plethora of literature where academics try to

understand the nature of Japan’s foreign policy, the development of its relations in the region of East

Asia, and how perceptions have changed among Japan’s neighboring countries after the former

renounced the right of war and maintenance of any type of military force.

Many scholars agree on the idea that Japan after World War II has made many successful

efforts to improve its relations in the region which indicates that Japan is positively predisposed to

developing multilateral approach in its foreign policy. Sueo Sudo’s article (1988) “Japan-ASEAN

relations: New Dimensions in Japan’s Foreign Policy” presents a valuable analysis of Japan’s

Southeast Asian policy in which he identifies 3 distinct periods after World War II. The first phase

was from 1952 to 1964, characterized by payment reparations through economic diplomacy. The

second phase from 1965 to 1975 is characterized by Japan’s active partaking in the economic

development of the region and the creation of several interregional institutions such as the Asian

Development Bank, the Ministerial Conference for the Economic Development of Southeast Asia,

and the Asian and Pacific Council. If the first two periods were influenced by the US presence, the

third period was initiated by the Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda’s new doctrine of Japan's positive

politico-economic role in Southeast Asia which led Japan to become a member of ASEAN in 1977.

The author believes Japan’s intentions of joining ASEAN were political because Japan wanted to

4

extend its cooperation in the region in order create a positive image among its neighbors. Sudo

considers Japan’s engagement with ASEAN as a demonstrator of the development of multilateralism.

The author believes that if Japan wants to play a greater international role, it needs active and

positive foreign policy in which its commitment to ASEAN should be a priority (Sudo 1988). The

same theme is also echoed by Bhubhindar Singh (2002), stating that East Asian countries have

positively changed their attitudes toward Japan as a result of latter’s economic involvement in

ASEAN. He believes that East Asian states view Japan as a vital regional player in order to

counterbalance the growth of China. Even the continuing discussions of revising the Article 9 of

Japan’s Constitution do not surprise many ASEAN countries as they would have in the past: “Many

ASEAN countries took them as inevitable developments.” (Singh 2002, 294) However, Singh (2002)

is convinced that Japan has to sustain its treaty with the US because Asian countries view their

alliance as a guarantee of peace in the region.

In Tsuneo Akaha’s (1991) article we learn that Japan has taken clear steps toward the idea of

militarization when it adopted Comprehensive Security Policy in 1980 initiated by Prime Minister

Masayoshi Ohira. The new policy included three main levels of national security measures: self-help

or self-defense; efforts to render the whole international system conducive to Japan's security; and

intermediate-level efforts to build a favorable security environment in the region. That

comprehensive security policy demonstrated Japan’s willingness to expand its international role

beyond economic measures and include a new military dimension. The author believes that the

reassessment of Japan’s security policy was a result of international developments since 1970s such

as the Cambodian conflict, the invasion of USSR in Afghanistan, and Iran-Iraq war where Japan’s

economic efforts were either unproductive or became a reason for international criticism. However,

Akaha views Japan’s national security regulations positively by assuming that East Asian countries

have to welcome it as well and not to be suspicious about its intentions because Japan’s goal is to

5

bring peace and stability through constructive actions. The author also visions Japan’s diplomatic

revival and military expansion as an avoidance of hegemonic expressions by any power in the region.

Similar to Akaha, Julie Gilson (2004) in the “Complex regional multilateralism: ‘strategising’

Japan’s responses to Southeast Asia” argues that Japan’s increasing official assertiveness in the

region of Southeast Asia demonstrates the active trend toward multilateralism and bilateral

relationships with the US are viewed by her as necessary supportive mechanisms for developing

more balanced system of multilateral approach. She believes that Japan has created close

relationships with its regional neighbors through various economic initiatives and institutions such as

ASEAN, ODA, APEC, and those trends demonstrate Japan’s inclination toward Asia. The author

also analyzes the positive change of the US position toward Asia because of the economic interests

and fight against terrorism. This type of approach from the US legitimizes and further initiates

Japan’s multilateral approach in the region which results in the improvement of Japan’s image in the

region as a precondition.

In addition, the US’ position regarding Japan’s multilateralism and active participation in

international developments has been favorable. Despite Japan’s generous financial contributions

during the Second Gulf War, the US was very critical of Japan’s approach, urging for human and

military contributions as well (Bowen 1992). It was a very confusing situation for Japan because on

the one hand, the international community wanted to see Japan demilitarized as a guarantee for its

inability of potential aggression, on the other hand, the US and its western allies expected Japan to

show active participation in resolving military conflicts. As a continuation of the topic, Michael

Green argues that Japan has actually demonstrated more of independence from the US in its South

East Asian policy being involved in ASEAN, and he considers that it is time for Japan to develop

mature foreign policy in order to respond constructively to international demands.

Soon after the criticism of the US during the Second Gulf War, Japan’s parliament approved

a legislation allowing Japanese forces to participate in UN peacekeeping operations (PKO) which is

6

discussed in George Aurelia’s (1993) article “Japan’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations:

radical departure or predictable response.” Aurelia believes that Japan’s participation in PKO can

help Japan to improve its image of a peacekeeper because UN PKO contributions belong to the

category of international security but not a traditional category of military defense. However, Japan

still needs to adjust the Article 9 in order to justify its military activation. It is necessary to mention

that despite categorical announcements of the Article 9 of Japan’s constitution, the latter has started

developing military power since 1954 calling it Self-Defense Forces (Hayes 2005). However, such

maneuvers by Japan violate the Article 9 of the Constitution which is a reason for Japan’s Asian

neighbors to believe that even the constitutional provision is not a guarantee for Japan’s

demilitarization (Hayes 2005). They consider that Japan has a well-constructed plan to hide behind

the US and the Article 9 while invisibly expanding its military in order to revive its aggressive

nature.

Thus, Article 9 is in the center of political debates in Japan. Mayumi Itoh’s (2001) article

“Japanese Constitutional Revision: A Neo-Liberal Proposal for Article 9 in Comparative

Perspective” presents views of politicians from different political parties on the question of amending

the Article 9. However, he emphasizes the changing views of liberal politicians who are also in

support of amending the constitution and as the LDP is the dominant party, the potential for Article

9’s transformation becomes real. The author believes that in case of the constitution’s revision, Japan

has to make all efforts to ensure its Asian neighbors that making SDF constitutional does not mean

that Japan will become aggressor but it is necessary in order to balance the contradictions between

official claims and the reality.

Besides the numerous contradictions in the foreign policy of Japan that affect its image in the

region of East Asia, there is also an aspect of Japan’s strict immigration laws that do not favor

foreigners, being designed to maintain the homogeneity of Japan’s population. There are minority

groups such as Koreans who have lived in Japan for two or three generations but they are still unable

7

to obtain citizenship. They are subject to economic and social discrimination, without having access

to certain types of jobs such as in education or administrative work (Hayes 2005). Though some

improvements have been made, they are only on local level (Takao 2003). The central

administration’s approach continues to be concentrated on the traditional notion of homogeneity

which can be illustrated by 1989 relaxation of immigration policy that allowed only foreigners of

Japanese descent to migrate to Japan (Takao 2003).

The other major issue that does not allow East Asian states to believe in the sincerity of

Japan’s intentions is the problem of accuracy of historical events in its history textbooks. As Saburo

Ienaga (1993) examines, militaristic values from Japan’s past have been presented to schoolchildren

since 1920s. The author claims that “Japan's textbooks have taught generations of its children that

war is glorious, and have concealed many of the sad truths of war, with sometimes tragic results”

(Ienega 1993, 130) and concludes that China’s and other Asian nations’ fears of militarism’s

resurgence in Japan is absolutely justified. In 2005 Japanese government authorized the

publication of the middle-school history textbooks containing numerous historical distortions

regarding the events of World War II; it caused mass demonstrations by Chinese and Koreans which

indicated that negative memories about Japan are still fresh among its neighbors, and Japan’s image

will not be improved until it practices the presentation of false history to its citizens, fueling the

negative feelings of its neighboring nations.

These sources offer a broad range of viewpoints regarding the issue of Japan’s distrustful

image among East Asian countries which is embedded in its undefined foreign policy practices,

immigration restrictions, and distorted history textbooks. Regarding Japan’s foreign policies one

thing that I noted as common among scholars is that all agree on the undeniable change in Japan’s

international role as more active. However, I also noted a gap that they mainly concentrate on the

economic aspect of its involvement, without paying much attention to the necessity of its diplomatic

development. My policy recommendation will be concerned for Japan to create a multilateral

8

diplomatic approach rather than to be only involved economically. In the areas of strict immigration

laws and falsification of facts in textbooks, scholars agree that these are aspects that harm Japan’s

image, especially in the region of East Asia, and they have to be improved as well in order to

enhance Japan’s image as a peacekeeper and advocate of democratic principles.

Research Hypotheses

My observations allowed me to define three major aspects that are barriers for Japan to be

psychologically accepted among its East Asian states which are still suspicious of Japan’s

remilitarization and the revival of its aggressive nature. According to these three aspects, I will

formulate three separate hypotheses.

The first factor is contradictions between the official foreign policy of Japan and the real

actions of Japan. Japan’s foreign policy is shaped by the Article 9 of the constitution and Yoshida

Doctrine. The Article 9 states that Japan forever renounces war as its right and will never maintain

“land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential” (Hayes 2005, 295), and according to

Yoshida doctrine Japan recognizes the US as its only director in foreign policy decisions (Green

2001). However, since 1954 Japan has started developing military power calling it as Self-Defense

Forces, and since 1992 Japan has sent its troops to participate in UN peacekeeping operations after

the US’s criticism of Japan’s solely financial contributions during the Second Gulf War (Aurelia

1993). Those activities by Japan are absolutely contradictory to the Article 9 which prohibits any

military power, no matter how it is called, and Japan’s neighboring states are convinced that the

former hides behind the US-Japan alliance and the Article 9 while undetectably expanding its

military power (Li 2007). In order for Japan to have more trustful relationships in the region, it needs

to reconcile those contradictions and develop more transparent foreign policy. As such the first

hypothesis can be stated as follows:

9

Hypothesis 1: The less contradictory Japan’s official foreign policies and real actions, the more trustful will be the attitudes of East Asian states toward Japan. The second factor is the strict laws against Japanese immigrants who are being indirectly

excluded from Japanese society through measures of social and economic discrimination. Until

recently they were officially not allowed to work in educational or administrative institutions and

until 1992 they were required to be fingerprinted as aliens (Hayes 2005). Though those rulings have

been outlawed, in 2007 Japan adopted a new immigration law, according to which all foreigners

entering and leaving Japan will be subjected to a rigorous inspection process, involving

fingerprinting and photographic identification (Fackler 2007). Foreigners will also be required to

answer a series of questions. The government explained the new laws to its own citizens as an

anticrime measure and to the United States as an antiterrorism measure, however many believe that

this is an obvious step to the revival of Japanese xenophobia (Fackler 2007). This issue is the basis

of my second research hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Less restricted immigration laws will lead to more improved relationships and better attitudes of Japan’s Asian neighbors toward the former. The third aspect is concerned with Japan’s government’s promotion of nationalism through

the distortion of historical facts in the textbooks, trying to hide the aggressive nature of Japan before

and during the World War II. The textbook content first developed into a regional spark point in

1982, when schoolchildren in Japan were denied an unbiased historical perspective (Collins 2005).

The Japanese attack of China was portrayed as “advancement;” the Nanjing massacre of 1937 in

where 300,000 people were massacred, was depicted as a consequence of Chinese army’s “heavy

resistance” (Collins 2005). After several protests in Korea and China, Japanese schoolbooks were

somewhat improved (He 2007). In April 2005 Chinese public was again irritated, learning that

Japanese government had approved the publication of history textbooks containing numerous

historical inaccuracies regarding the events of World War II (Yutaka 2003). Asian countries

consider that Japan denies and even beautifies the history of its country’s aggression which in turn

10

leads to the notion that Japan has a potential to revive its militaristic nature (Ienega 1993).

Subsequently, these attitudes create distrust among Asian countries about the real intentions of Japan

and cause frictions in their relationships. My final research hypothesis can be stated as follows:

Hypothesis 3: The more accurate the presentation of history by Japan, the less suspicious Asian nations will be regarding Japan’s military intentions. If the three research hypotheses are supported, then I would expect the evidence to show that

whenever Japan violates its official foreign policy, practices discriminatory immigration laws, and

presents false facts in its history textbooks, they will cause distrust among East Asian countries about

Japan’s truthfulness in its commitment to demilitarization and reconciliation of relationships. On the

other hand, I would expect to discover that improvements in these areas would lead to the

enhancement of Japan’s image in the region as of a true advocate of peace.

Methodology

The dependent variable in my study is the image of Japan among its East Asian neighbors

while the independent variables are contradictions in Japan’s foreign policy of pacifism and bilateral

relationships, the strict immigration laws and the official presentation of false history in Japan’s

textbooks. These independent variables are among the primary reasons why Japan still lacks trustful

relationships in the region of East Asia. As I am studying three different independent variables that

influence the state of the dependent variable which is Japan’s image among its regional neighbors, I

will need to develop multiple case studies in order to examine the impact of each independent

variable on the formation of the dependent variable.

The first independent variable is Japan’s foreign policy. Every country has its own foreign

policy which is a set of objectives, outlining that specific country’s interactions with other countries

on an official basis. Each state’s foreign policy is primarily aimed to promote its national interests

(Payne, Nassar 2008). When the official foreign policy of Japan was established after the World War

11

II, Japan’s national interests were economic and moral recovery of the country (Green 2001). They

believed that those national interests could be achieved by demilitarization when Japan would put all

its efforts into the building of the economy, and low diplomatic profile without any involvement in

international disputes. However, as Japan achieved high levels of economic growth, its national

interests changed into having a more decisive role in international affairs and ensuring its national

security (Hayes 2005). These activities toward diplomatic expansion and multilateral relationships

have not been officially recognized which have caused uncertainty among East Asian states about

Japan’s intentions.

In order to test hypothesis, perform data analysis, and make recommendations in the area of

Japan’s foreign policy I would employ a qualitative methodology of exploring how the role of Japan

has changed in international affairs and especially, in the region referring to their policy changes and

the emergence of new legislations. I would look for Japan’s involvement in international or regional

organizations. Then, I would explore Japan’s military status: if it has military forces, if they have

been involved in any international operations. Despite my own observations, I would refer to the

views of respected academics about Japan’s foreign policy changes and how they evaluate those

transformations. I believe these case studies would enable us to make informed recommendations

regarding the ways Japan has to change its policies in order to eliminate controversies between its

official foreign policies and the reality.

The problem of strict immigration laws is the next issue to be explored. Immigration laws

are the national policies which regulate the immigration phenomenon in a country. The case of

Japan’s immigration laws are particularly important because Japan has continually been as a highly

homogenous country; however, after the World War II Japan needed workforce to recover its

economy, and large groups of immigrants from Asian nations such as Korea and China were brought

into the country (Hayes 2005). But ethnic minorities in Japan have been continually subjected to

discrimination and exclusion from Japanese society. To perform data analysis in the field of Japan’s

12

immigration laws, I would employ a mixed quantitative-qualitative technique by surveying a

representative sample of immigrants. For my survey, I would include not only Asian immigrants but

also immigrants from non-Asian states in order to avoid a bias connected with the ethnicity because

ethnic minorities such as Koreans have different history of relationships with Japanese people than

other non-Asian nations: “there have been occasions in the past where Koreans have been the victims

of gross brutality at the hands of the Japanese” (Hayes 2005, 151). Thus, the inclusion of other

minorities would help reduce the bias. Sample questions would include: What is your nationality?

How have your official rights changed in the country? How do you feel about your assimilation into

Japanese society? These questions would help me assess how the attitudes of East Asian countries

stem from Japanese immigration laws.

The last aspect is connected with the distortion of historical facts in Japanese textbooks,

hiding the atrocities that were done by Japanese to Asian nations such as Korea and China.

According to a widespread opinion among East Asian nations, those distortions are intended to

revive the idea of nationalism, ethnocentrism that will lead to the young generation being more

supportive of military empowerment. As Pempel (1992) correctly mentions, many democracies

practice the one-sided presentation of history in their educational systems in order to develop

patriotism and loyalty but in Japan’s case that issue is particularly delicate because the country is

committed to pacifist ideas and the reconciliation of relationships with other nations, especially in the

region. So, its efforts of reconciliation will be useless if Japan continues to practice the presentation

of false history. To test the last hypothesis, regarding Japan’s educational practices and their

influence on the worldviews of schoolchildren, I would again employ a mixed qualitative-

quantitative quasi-experimental method. I would take two different schools, in one school we would

teach the distorted history where Japan is justified in its military actions without presenting the other

side, and in the other school we would teach an objective, two-sided view of history. We would

continue our experiment for several semesters in order to get objective results. Afterwards, we would

13

conduct a survey, trying to assess how democratic the views of each group is and how critical their

opinions are regarding the military standing of Japan and the relations in the region of East Asia.

Then we would observe how the views of representatives of other Asian nations change in

communication with people who were exposed to the true history and with the students who have

been taught a biased history. I would expect that students exposed to the unbiased history facts be

better predisposed to the idea of Japan developing more positive image in the region of East Asia,

while students taught the official historical perspective, would be ignorant to the idea of Japan’s

image in the region, assuming that Japan has not been the perpetrator.

To make policy recommendations, we will also need to analyze the domestic policy

environment which means we have to define the views of the leading political groups and the public

in order to see how they are inclined to policy changes. To perform analysis in the area of policy

environment, I will refer to academic sources, exploring a qualitative case analysis technique.

Reviewing an extensive set of literature on that topic, I will try to penetrate the optimal idea of how

the dominant political powers view policy changes and if the public’s opinion is in accordance with

the government’s inclinations. Based on these assessments, we will be able to make applicable

policy recommendations.

It is necessary to mention that by exploring the cases with Japan’s foreign policy,

immigration laws, and educational techniques, we will obtain only an overall knowledge of why

Japan is still viewed suspiciously by its regional neighbors and what could be done to improve

Japan’s image. The limitation of the study is that we do not conduct studies in some other

regional countries in order to know how they would view changes in Japan’s policies. However,

if we include studies in other countries, it will involve new variables which will expand the

scope of our research considerably.

14

Conclusion

I have only outlined the methodology that I would employ to define selected reasons of

Japan’s psychological non-acceptability in the region of East Asia, and our conclusions should be

based only after the studies have been conducted. However, based on my strong presumptions and

the knowledge gained from the study of academic sources on the topic, I think the likely results will

be in favor of the existence of problems in areas of Japan’s foreign policy, immigration laws, and

educational system. The results will more likely indicate that the problems in those areas hamper the

relationships of Japan with its regional neighbors, Based on this facts, I will try to make a number of

recommendations that should lead to the improvements of the image and relationships of Japan

among East Asian states.

As we learned, Japan had a radical historical transition after World War II. Prior to that

period, Japan was a militaristic state, supporting the idea of ethnocentrism and strict homogeneous

society. After the World War II. Japan adopted the policies of democratization and demilitarization

to detach itself from its past. That transition was very radical and could not be utilized by the nation

immediately. However, if Japan really desires the achievement of a final disconnection from its

historical past, it has to abolish its endorsement of nationalism through falsification of historical

facts. It should develop patriotism through introduction of the true history by elaborating the idea of

Japanese nation’s greatness that is able to face the bitter truth and never repeat its historical

misdeeds. In the area of immigration laws, Japan needs to develop less discriminatory principles,

allow the immigrants that have lived in Japan for two or three generations become citizens, and

promote warmer atmosphere for multicultural relations. In that way, East Asian states will be more

convinced that Japan is committed to recovery of their relationships. Most importantly, Japan needs

to make adjustments in the area of its foreign policy. First, they have to moderate the language of the

Article 9 in order to justify their possession of SDF forces and participation in UN PKO. As we

15

studied, Japan is already involved in numerous international organizations such as ODA, APEC, and

ASEAN. Though these are mainly economic organizations, they have created a positive ground for

Japan to develop multilateral relations instead of being committed to the bilateral US-Japan relations.

Many observers agree that Japan’s involvement in different international institutions is evidence of

Japan’s willingness to come out from its diplomatic isolation. However, in order for Japan to make

those foreign policy changes and not to look as a potential threat to its East Asian neighbors, Japan

needs to initiate creation of a solely diplomatic organization called “Partnership for Peace” that

should include primarily regional countries. The main purpose of the institution will be the

collaboration for the preservation and maintenance of peace in the region. The foundation of the

organization should be the diplomatic cooperation; however, it will inevitably include an economic

aspect as well because the settlement of any conflict in a member country will also involve economic

contributions. By creating this organization, Japan will officially manifest its multilateral foreign

policy approach and display its commitment to the regional peace and cooperation. I strongly believe

that the above mentioned changes in the foreign policy of Japan will contribute to the improvement

of Japan’s image among East Asian nations.

The findings of my study suggest valuable ideas for political science and international affairs

in general. First, the study demonstrates that even in extreme cases, it is diplomatically incorrect for

any country to make categorical enactments as Japan did by the endorsement of the Article 9 and the

commitment to strict bilateral relations with the US. Such commitments can bring gridlock when the

national interests and international arrangements change. Second, the study implies that in the era of

intensive globalization when nations merge and their interests largely become the same, it is

inappropriate for any country to promote nationalism and policies of exclusion based on ethnicity.

This practice can lead to the country’s isolation, damaging its image and foreign relations.

16

References. Akaha, Tsuneo. April, 1991. “Japan's Comprehensive Security Policy: A New East Asian

Environment.” Asian Survey 31(4):324-340.

Aurelia, George. June, 1993. “Japan's Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: Radical

Departure or Predictable Response?” Asian Survey 33(6):560-575.

Bowen, Roger W. March, 1992. “Japan's Foreign Policy.” Political Science and Politics

25(1):57-73.

Collins, Michael. June, 2005. “Riots and Remembrance: Rising tensions between China and

Japan.” Contemporary Review 286(1673):333-338.

Fackler, Martin. 18 November 2007. “New Japanese Immigration Controls Worries Foreigners.”

The New-York Times.

Gilson, Julie. March, 2004. “Complex regional multilateralism: ‘strategising’ Japan’s responses

to Southeast Asia.” The Pacific Review 17(1):71–94.

Green, J. Michael. 2001. Japan’s Reluctant Realism: Foreign Policy Challenges in an Era of

Uncertain. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hayes, Louis D. 2005. Introduction to Japanese Politics. 4th edition. Armonk, New York:

M.E.Sharpe.

He, Yinan. Fall 2007. “History and Memory.” Bloomington: 19(2):43-75.

<http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1335802761&Fmt=3&clientId=16627&RQT=309&

VName=PQD>

Ienaga, Saburo. Winter, 1993-1994. “The Glorification of War in Japanese Education.”

International Security 18(3):113-133.

17

Itoh, Mayumi. March-April, 2001. “Constitutional Revision: A Neo-Liberal Proposal for Article

9 in Comparative Perspective.” Asian Survey 41(2):310-327.

Li, Chien-pin. 12 November 2007 “Japan’s Political System.” Politics of the Pacific Rim.

Kennesaw State University, Atlanta. 12 November 2007.

Payne, Richard J. and Nassar, Jamal R. 2008. Politics and Culture in the Developing World: the

Impact of Globalization. 3rd edition. New York: Pearson Longman.

Pempel, T.J. March, 1992 “Japanese Democracy and Political Culture.” Political Science and

Politics. 25(1):5-12.

Sudo, Sueo. May, 1988. “Japan-ASEAN Relations: New Dimensions in Japanese Foreign

Policy.” Asian Survey 28(5):509-525.

Singh, Bhubhindar. March-April, 2002. “ASEAN's Perceptions of Japan: Change and

Continuity.” Asian Survey 42(2):276-296.

Takao, Yasuo. May-June, 2003. “Foreigners' Rights in Japan: Beneficiaries to Participants.”

Asian Survey 43(3):527-552.

Yutaka, Kawashima. 2003. Japanese Foreign Policy at the Crossroads: Challenges and Options

for the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.