A Critical Understanding of Japan’s Improved Late 20th Century Relations in Eastern Asia Thesis submitted for the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy, Department of International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science, September 29, 2003. Revisions completed : February 14, 2005. Jayantha Jayman UMI Number: U6157B9 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615739 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ureses f Bntisn Lib^arv o ' Political a n d E c o o ' «rtMt S c ie ,v ’f! \ZC& ABSTRACT Japan’s imperial history and its narrow self-interested post-WW II policies caused much animosity in Eastern Asia, yet its improved relations in the region from the 1980s onwards, even when assessed from a critical perspective, demand scholarly attention. This dissertation finds improved relations a result of Japan legitimating its regional hegemony. The critical theories of Gramsci (1937) and Habermas (1976) applied within intemtional relations suggest legitimation of hegemonic power at the international level only occurs when providing ‘global public goods’—defined metaphorically with the UNDP’s modification of Kindleberger’s (1986) work—such that post colonial states achieve rapid economic development to close the rich-poor gap as understood by Strange (1950). Analogous to the enabling notion of Sen’s (1974) “positive freedoms,” such ‘public goods’ are needed by states to enable nationalist projects of development, and as such their delivery is seen by Murakami (1996) as the responsibility of hegemonic powers of the day. In order to assess ‘global public goods’ the dissertation deploys Susan Strange’s (1988a) framework of ‘structural power.’ Within the knowledge structure, it is shown that Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda’s 1977 doctrine successfully guided policy towards improving regional relations in Eastern Asia. On the economic side, the Fukuda Doctrine provided ‘global public goods’ in knowledge by deploying Japan’s own experience of ‘developmentalism’ for the Eastern Asian region thus countering neo-liberalism of the “Washington Consensus,” while it also assisted in the transfer of appropriate and absorbable technology. The provision of ‘global public goods’ over the 1980s put Eastern Asia on course to catch-up with industrialised nations as Japanese firms, aided by a rising yen, went on to invest in the region. These firms began to transfer production bases from Japan, such that by the end of the 1990s each of these post colonial states saw their manufactured exports leading to economic growth rates that put them on a path to catch-up to Japan and other industrialised nations in time. In military security terms, Japan continued its pacific and defensive military posture thus calming a volatile region to enable economic development. Tokyo also pushed for collective regional security, while tacitly supporting the upgrading of post colonial Eastern Asia’s own defence capabilities. The implications of the dissertation are that Japan’s success in improving its regional relations places it in the international system as a responsible self-interested power to be emulated by other powers interested in a peaceful world, thus contributing to scholarship in international relations, development and history. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (2003)..............................................................................................vi REVISIONS (2004).....................................................................................................................viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (2004)............................................................................................... x ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................... xii CHARTS......................................................................................... xv DIAGRAMS..................................................................................................................................xv TABLES........................................................................................................................................ xv Introduction .......................................................................................................................................1 I JAPAN’S OLD RELATIONS IN EASTERN ASIA: REVILED FASCIST-IMPERIALISM.................. 2 II JAPAN’S POSITIVELY CHANGED RELATIONS IN EASTERN ASIA: FROM REVILEMENT TO REGIONAL LEADERSHIP.........................................................................................................5 III THE QUESTION OF UNDERSTANDING JAPAN’S IMPROVED RELATIONS IN EASTERN ASIA ...............................................................................................................................................................10 IV ORGANISATION OF THE DISSERTATION.............................................................................................. 11 Chapter 1: Japan’s Improved Relations in Eastern Asia: A Problem for the Pillars of International Relations Theory .....................................................................................................16 1.1.0 ACCEPTING THE “SECOND INVASION” BY JAPAN:DEPENDENCIA ’S PUZZLE IN EASTERN ASIA ...............................................................................................................................................................18 1.1.1 Eastern Asia in Japan’s “embrace”: myopia of the latest dependency view ........................................ 19 1.1.2 Dependencia: assuming manipulation by Empire ............................................................................... 21 1.1.3 The Dependencia paradox: Development via modem Japanese “empire” ..........................................23 1.2.0 LIBERAL RE-INTEGRATION VIA COMMERCE: NEGLECTING JAPANESE ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER ...................................................................................................................25 1.2.1 A liberal account of Japan’s positive relations in Eastern Asia ........................................................... 26 1.2.2 Liberal “perpetual peace” and the problem of power politics and hegemony .............. 27 1.2.3 The liberal neglect of Japanese economic structural power ................................................................ 31 1.3.0 MISSING THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSENT TO POWER: REALISM AS ONLY COERCION....................................................................................................................................................................... 35 1.3.1 Playing the China card: ignoring a changed Japan .............................................................................. 36 1.3.2 Why North American realism fails: problems with universal coercion ...............................................40 1.3.3 A realist puzzle: integrating with a re-arming formerly belligerent power ..........................................44 Conclusion ASSESSING JAPAN’S RELATIONS IN EASTERN ASIA: CONSIDERING THE LEGITIMATION OF HEGEMONY.............................................................................................................................45 Chapter 2: Understanding Power Normatively in the International System: Legitimation of Hegemony via the Metaphorical Notion of ‘Public Goods’ ..................................................48 2.1.0 NON-DETERMINISTIC HEGEMONY: GRAMSCI’S CRITICAL CONSENT AND COERCION....................................................................................................................................................................... 50 2.1.1 The original Gramsci: coercion and consent to be verified ................................................................. 52 2.1.2 Non-determinism and critical thought: the importance of verification ................................................53 2.1.3 Defining hegemony: consent to ‘international public goods’ provision .............................................. 56 2.2.0 UNDERSTANDING LEGITIMATION OF HEGEMONY VIA METAPHORICAL ‘PUBLIC GOODS’ PROVISION.................................................................................................................................................... 60 2.2.1 The metaphorical ‘public goods’ within liberal hegemony ................................................................. 62 2.2.2 The history of liberal ideas of legitimacy: ‘public goods’ for private profit ........................................64 2.2.3 Legitimation: why the powerful might provide ‘public goods’ ........................................................... 66 2.2.4 Legitimation crisis and solution: importance of legitimacy ................................................................ 68 2.3.0 A THEORY OF LEGITIMATING