London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. xiv, 146 pp. CAD$54.99, cloth. ISBN 978-1-137-59553-9.
In a welcome trend, English-language scholarship on Sino-Japanese relations has grown quantitatively and qualitatively in recent years. This vital relationship raises all kinds of interesting questions for students of international relations. The Palgrave pivot book by Pugliese and Insisa contributes to this area of inquiry by focusing on the diplomatic relationship between Beijing and Tokyo since the September 2012 nationalization of the three isles of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands.
The nationalization of the disputed isles by the Noda government in September 2012, as a pivotal event in a series of actions and reactions between the two governments, triggered a tense standoff with Beijing. Pugliese and Insisa conclude that since the nationalization move, the bilateral relationship has been at its lowest point since diplomatic normalization in 1972. I would argue that the current relationship is the worst it has been since 1952 because of the present danger of military clashes and the arms race. I agree with the authors that the bilateral relationship has stabilized at a new low since the end of 2014.
Pugliese and Insisa argue in the conclusion chapter that they have advanced a neo-classical realist argument. But they state early on in the book, “this study is open ended to the variety of Realism that best describes the Japanese and Chinese foreign policy” (50). They do not clarify why they choose neo-classical realism, rather than alternative realist theories, to explain Sino-Japanese relations at this stage. Indeed, the book does not define neo-classical realism for those who may not be as familiar with terminologies used by international relations scholars. Neo-classical realism is commonly associated with Gideon Rose’s October 1998 World Politics review article. It seeks to combine the “classical realism” represented by Hans Morgenthau in the 1950s and the “structural realism or neorealism” represented by Kenneth Waltz at the end of the 1970s, essentially calling for a broader realist perspective that incorporates systemic, psychological, and domestic variables.
This book treats neo-classical realism as a loose theoretical framework. To single out a particular realist approach, one would expect a sharper analysis. It would have been better to stick to the “power politics” in the book’s title. Pugliese and Insisa are correct in stating that power politics matter a great deal in current Sino-Japanese relations. But the book’s subtitle suggests possible alternative explanations. Pugliese attributes the book’s subtitle to David Lampton’s work on Chinese foreign policy (The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money, and Minds, University of California Press, 2008). Lampton has a far broader definition of might, money, and minds than what is presented in this book.
Pugliese and Insisa dismiss alternative arguments too quickly. About identity politics, they conclude that “identity formation is increasingly rooted on the instrumentalism proper of the Realpolitik of Sino-Japanese power politics over the Diaoyu/Senkaku standoff, but this is a reification of the underlying power shift to unbalanced multipolarity, contributing to the mix of insecurities and assertiveness on both sides” (30–31). Virtually no IR scholars dismiss the importance of power and power politics. But those scholars who focus on ideational factors want to know how the idea of power is constructed in the first place. Empirically, since 2012, identity politics and power politics have pointed in the same direction and have reinforced each other, but that does not mean that they have always been in sync.
On the economic front, Pugliese and Insisa use identity politics to dismiss commercial liberalism, stating that “both contemporary Sino-Japanese relations and fin de siècle European interstate relations share a major weakness, the destabilizing and parallel influences of irrational threat perceptions, usually fed by nationalistic sentiments” (81). Their focus is on economic statecraft and they use national capabilities to compete and potentially damage one’s adversaries. However, that is only part of the economic story between China and Japan, as indeed between any countries. The authors are surely right that economic ties have not helped as much as one would expect, but they are too quick to dismiss the impact of broad economic relations on how the two governments define their national interests and thus choose to behave.
This book makes a valuable contribution by discussing in great detail the two governments’ propaganda wars, in East Asia and the world. The book gets off to a strong start with a discussion of the competing narratives as symbolized in the national events around August and September 2015, victory day for China and end of war day for Japan. This aspect of Sino-Japanese interaction reveals a major departure from post-1972 relations. The book’s analysis of the top-down, state-led antagonistic narratives is refreshing and accurate. China’s propaganda institutions and campaigns are well known. But as Pugliese and Insisa recognize, a strong nationalistic current exists in Japan as well. The Japanese government also manipulates imagery to gain advantage. “State-crafted narratives may purposefully simplify, if not altogether bend, real-world complexity for the same aims … Tokyo’s repeated reference to the contested concept of the international rule of law is a case in point” (13). At the same time, we should recognize the existing, long-held public sentiment that the two governments use and manipulate to advance their national objectives.
Several chapters in the book appear to rely mainly on material from previous publications. Chapters 2 and 3 are repetitive because they are based on two previous annual survey articles published by Pugliese (“Japan 2014: Between a China Question and a China Obsession” and “Japan 2015: Confronting East Asia’s Geopolitical Game of Go”) listed in the acknowledgment of the book. There was little fundamental change between those two years. The title of chapter 2 mentions identity politics, but its core focus remains power politics, similar to that of chapter 3. Both chapters present a first section on the territorial dispute and power transition and start the following section with the term “neo-classical realism.” Then, to some extent chapter 4 on “might” repeats what was said in the previous two chapters. It would have been better to consolidate these three chapters.
Ming Wan
George Mason University, Arlington, USA
pp. 809-811