Kyoto: Minerva Shobō, 2015. 353 pp. ISBN 978-4-623-07417-4.
This book attempts to reconcile the divide between diplomatic history and international relations (IR) theory in Japanese academia. In order to achieve this aim, the author, Tsuyoshi Kawasaki, provides a comprehensive guide to the study of Japan’s foreign policy that integrates historical analysis with recent advancements in the field of IR theory. Building on his repertoire of articles published in leading journals on Asia-Pacific affairs, Kawasaki’s book is guided by two core interests: first, to employ IR theory in assessing the relevance of Japan’s foreign policy in broader historical comparison; and secondly, to utilize Japan as a case study to contribute to the development of IR theory.
These two objectives shape the structure of this book, comprising nine chapters divided into three parts. Kawasaki launches his study with a detailed introduction of social science research methods, outlining the various qualitative methods available to the study of foreign policy. Rooted in the understanding of theory as critical for the production of abstract knowledge (as opposed to concrete knowledge based on historical analysis), the first part of this book offers a detailed template for the study of causal mechanisms in international relations. The second part of the book is devoted to the application of analytical concepts derived from various branches of IR theory to cases of Japan’s foreign policy. Each chapter is well structured, introducing the reader to the concepts and theories applied before engaging in the case study. The reader is also introduced to the secondary Japanese- and English-language literature on the subjects analyzed. Depending on the case being examined, this literature is accompanied by primary sources in the form of government documents and key strategy papers, oral history accounts, and autobiographies written by key bureaucrats and political elites.
This work is firmly based on qualitative social science research methods. The author employs, for example, operational code analysis in combination with the concept of multilateralism as developed by John Gerald Ruggie to explain Japan’s ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) diplomacy. In so doing, Kawasaki convincingly shows how the competition between three major strategic views (i.e., pacifist, balance-of-power, multilateralist) within Japan’s policy community has informed Tokyo’s approach to the ARF and concludes that Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has promoted ARF-multilateralism to avoid a security dilemma caused by distrust between China, the US, and Japan, while at the same time maintaining Tokyo’s commitment to the US-Japan security alliance. Kawasaki’s study of the Yoshida Line challenges conventional realist analysis of Japan’s postwar foreign policy. A process-tracing/counterfactual study of Japan’s alliance formation (i.e., the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902, the Tripartite Pact of 1940, and the US-Japan alliance of 1951) engages with realist theories of alliance behavior (e.g., bandwagoning and buck-passing). While confirming Stephan Walt’s “balance of threat” theory, which conceives alliances as military instruments, Kawasaki’s study, which is based on an extensive reading of historical diplomatic records, also illustrates how Japan’s alliances have formed out of concerns for political control. Kawasaki’s application of the congruence method to the analysis of the Yoshida Line (which the book distinguishes from the Yoshida Doctrine) as Tokyo’s grand strategy evolving in response to specific changes in Japan’s geostrategic environment (in contrast to domestic politics) confirms postclassical realism. Further expanding his analysis of postwar Japan’s defense strategy, Kawasaki offers a detailed case study of the 1976 National Defense Program Outline as postwar Japan’s first military doctrine. This analysis contributes to the structural realist/social constructivist debate in IR emphasising East Asia’s geostrategic environment and the impact of pacifist norms on national security practice, respectively. Challenging constructivist approaches, such as Elizabeth Kier’s cultural theory on the formation of military doctrine, Kawasaki builds an in-depth analysis of the policy views of leading Japanese defense planners such as Kubo Takuya and Sakata Michio to demonstrate the complex interplay between political leadership and policy ideas in the formation of postwar Japan’s defense posture.
Through his rigorous use of social science research methods, Kawasaki’s well-structured collection of case studies, written in a clear and comprehensible style, succeeds in bridging the divide between historical and theory-driven analysis of Japan’s foreign policy. It introduces Japan as a useful case study in the broader field of IR while at the same time facilitating dialogue between area studies, diplomatic history, and IR theory in Japanese academia. While IR theory is marked by entrenched divides between major theories associated with realism, liberalism, and post-structural approaches, case studies of alliance formation in the analysis of Japanese foreign policy offer an important contribution to the advancement of middle-range theory.
Yet some problems remain. Most importantly, a balanced selection of case studies which include Japan’s foreign economic or human security diplomacy would further our understanding of contemporary Japan’s foreign policy, especially since Tokyo’s formula of a “comprehensive security” has since the early 1980s linked security and economic interests in foreign affairs. Moreover, while a focus on Japan contributes to the realists/constructivists debate on the causes of change and stability in a state’s security practice, the book’s specific use of case studies in the context of this debate requires careful explanation in order to avoid claims of a selection bias. Finally, Kawasaki’s book emphasizes mainstream US-centered IR theory provided in journals such as International Security, which leaves untapped the many critical approaches developed in Europe, including securitization theory, peace and conflict studies, or English school approaches to international society in such journals as the European Journal of International Relations. Kawasaki also makes no mention of the vital debate on unique traditions in Japanese IR scholarship that has unfolded since the early 2000s.
Incorporating such perspectives would have produced a comprehensive guide to the study of Japan’s foreign and security affairs and enriched the dialogue between Japan experts and IR scholars. Nevertheless, offering a template for foreign policy research, this book should be recommended reading for students and scholars of Japan and IR alike. Kawasaki voices his concerns over a “marginalization” (7) of Japan’s domestic foreign policy research community; this study will surely help forestall such trends by encouraging participation in international IR debate and the employment of new social science research methods in Japan.
Sebastian Maslow
Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
pp. 807-809