Background

Debate over the meaning and desirability of a more “normal” Japan has continued since the early 1990s when Ichiro Ozawa announced his Blueprint for a New Japan in response to what he saw as the new realities of the post-Cold War era. Indeed, some of the reforms called for by Ozawa either have been achieved in the political and electoral domain, or are still in progress. These include the shelving of the post-war Yoshida Doctrine and incremental moves towards freeing up Japan’s legal restrictions on the use of its military. There has been a debate in Japan for some time over the necessity or otherwise of these mooted changes, and other countries in the region have made their perspectives clear on key issues surrounding this debate.

The development of a new and more conventional security and diplomatic identity for Japan – Ozawa’s main objective – has progressed rapidly under current Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. This was underscored by the Abe Cabinet’s high profile ‘re-interpretation’ of Article 9 in 2014, and the Government’s increasingly ambitious pronouncements on strategic policy more broadly. Criticised by some as an ultra-nationalist keen on glorifying Japan’s military past, and applauded by others for navigating Japan’s escape from the uncertainty of the “lost decades”, Prime Minister Abe’s policies are controversial and their eventual legacy remains unclear.

What is clear, however, is that Japan’s identity in the broader region is changing, and the meaning of the various changes – political, legal, aspirational – underpinning Japan’s collective makeover as a nation state remain disputed at home and abroad, particularly in Northeast Asia. When examined only through the lenses of Japan’s “peace constitution” and its past occupations of Korea, China, and Southeast Asia, concern over any departure from the formal renunciation of military force that has characterised Japan’s foreign policy for more than six decades is understandable. But when viewed in the context of Asia’s increasingly fluid strategic environment, a broader perspective on the Abe government’s policies, what is driving these policies, and their likely effects in shaping Japan’s future identity, becomes possible.

Objectives and Approach

The 2015 Australia-Japan Dialogue seeks to locate Japan’s political and security reforms within this context by examining the level of convergence and divergence between Australian and Japanese policy responses to contemporary international pressures. The Dialogue is aimed at identifying the extent to which Japan’s emerging identity as a more active international actor is being driven by structural and material change in the global order and to what extent it is being shaped by domestic factors in Japanese politics. Australia and Japan’s similar political systems and values; strategic alignments; and foreign policy priorities, including the further development of trade and investment ties, provide a strong basis for gauging the level of external influence on domestic policy and debate in both countries. Indeed, comparing the Japanese experience with the Australian experience is significant because both countries face similar challenges in Asia with respect to geopolitical shifts triggered by the redefinition of the US-China relationship and economic forces resulting from multilateral initiatives, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. How Japan redefines its own role in Asia and beyond will impact on the future of the Australia-Japan relationship, so it is critical to grasp the various dynamics that will shape that redefinition.

Thus, a broader, more contextualised, analysis of the drivers behind Japan’s current shift away from its traditional pacifist identity towards that of a more engaged state actor able to act beyond only the realm of economic and financial contribution and influence is important for better understanding both i) the drivers of Japan’s identity shift; and ii) the kinds of policy interests that are likely to evolve from this shift and their likely effects on the Australia-Japan bi-lateral relationship.

More>> (PDF / 350kB)