Japan has abandoned decades of pacifism in response to Ukraine invasion and increased Chinese pressure on Taiwan.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, have left tens of thousands dead and sent shockwaves across Europe and the Middle East. But – brutal and tragic as they are – the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are regionally bounded, meaning that most of the rest of the world rolls along, largely unaffected. This will not be the case if armed conflict breaks out in east Asia.
Thanks to rising tensions in the Taiwan Straits, Kim Jong Un’s sabre-rattling on the Korean Peninsula, Sino-US rivalry and China’s developing alliance with Russia the risks of armed conflict shattering this region are growing, with far-reaching ramifications.
This article is the opinion of the authors Paul O’Shea, Lund University and Sebastian Maslow, Sendai Shirayuri Women’s College and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
East Asia drives the global economy. Taiwan is pivotal to the global semiconductor industry – essential to modern life. Taiwanese semiconductors power everything from TVs to cars, guided missiles to AI-bots. After Taiwan, neighbouring South Korea has the second-highest market share.
Meanwhile, despite the US and EU’s efforts to reduce their dependency on China, it remains by far the world’s biggest manufacturer. Global supply chains bring commodities, components, and finished goods in and out of the region through major sea-trade routes south to the straits of Malacca and east across the Pacific to the Americas.
Against this tense backdrop, later this year the US will elect a new president. As the incumbent, Joe Biden, struggles in the polls, his rival Donald Trump’s prospects are improving. This is leading to grave and growing concerns in Europe that Trump will abandon Ukraine – and perhaps even Nato itself, overturning decades of security stability in Europe. But what of east Asia?
Cornerstone for Asian security
The security of east Asia – and thus the stability of the global economy – is predicated on a country we have yet to mention: Japan. The US-Japanese alliance has defined Asian security since the early days of the cold war and US troops have had a continuous presence on Japanese soil since 1945.
According to the 1960 treaty on which it is based, if Japan is attacked, the US must come to its defence. The obligation is not mutual, however, thanks to the pacifist clause US officials inserted into Japan’s postwar constitution.
The intention was to prevent Japan becoming a future threat, and the result is that Japan became an “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, with US military bases scattered across the archipelago.
This “Pax Americana” enabled decades of regional peace and economic growth – albeit on terms dictated by the US. For decades, Japan was a sleeping partner in all this: enjoying the peace and prosperity without spending much on its own military or getting involved in US adventurism.
But after years of US pressure to remilitarise, today Japan is increasing military spending and taking a regional leadership role. This is Japan’s response to a rising China, relative US decline, and increasingly isolationist American public opinion – not to mention Trump’s “America first” rhetoric.
‘Proactive Pacifism’
Today’s changes are the culmination of decades of drift from pacifism to “normality”. Following Shinzo Abe’s return to power in 2012, Japan rolled out a new security doctrine in the form of its “proactive pacifism”.
As part of this shift, in December 2022 Japan introduced a revised national security strategy and new security institutions such as a National Security Council. It has lifted a long-standing ban on arms exports, initiated new regional security partnerships, modernised its military, and reinterpreted the postwar pacifist constitution to allow for Japan’s participation in collective self-defence operations alongside allies.
Most importantly, Abe’s government crafted its “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” vision, thus engineering a new geopolitical space that has defined the parameters for rebalancing China’s rise.
These changes were designed to increase Japan’s influence within the context of the US alliance. Then came Trump’s 2016 presidential election. The rhetoric of “America first” increased fears of abandonment in Tokyo. Given the alternative scenario – facing China alone – the Abe government worked hard to keep Trump onside, making trade and diplomatic concessions, and pledging to “make the alliance even greater”.
After Ukraine
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was the final nail in the coffin of Japan’s postwar pacifism. On the first anniversary of the invasion, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned, “Ukraine today could be east Asia tomorrow,” implying that Taiwan could be next.
Continuing where Abe left off, he pledged to increase military spending as well as lifting the remaining restrictions on arms exports, while strengthening Japan’s relations with Nato.
Increasing global instability has prompted Japan to abandon its low-profile, economy-first approach, seeking instead to shape regional and even global geopolitics. By expanding its security role, it has made itself even more indispensable to the US, which sees China as the primary long-term threat.
So, while Japan may fear a second Trump presidency, the risk of abandonment is lower than that faced by America’s allies in Europe. Still, the long-term trend would appear to be that the US is pulling back and expecting its allies to do more. Meanwhile the instability of US politics in an election year means that nothing can be taken for granted.
As the US recedes, can Japan fill the gap? Or will its ambitions exceed its capabilities? Already, plans to further develop its military are hampered by a shrinking economy and a shrinking population. While China faces similar issues, its economy is over four times bigger than that of Japan’s, and its population is ten times the size.
Thus, the only realistic way for Japan to balance China, manage North Korea, and maintain its regional position, is for the US to stay engaged. And even that might not be enough to prevent China from invading Taiwan. The future of the region, and of the global economy, hangs in the balance.
Paul O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies, Lund University and Sebastian Maslow, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Sendai Shirayuri Women’s College. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Japans big problem is a profound level of bureaucracy, that many just be the worst in the world, added to the single biggest national debt problem of any modern nation ( around 265% of GDP and rising)..Its it’s also go one of the worst demographic timebomb of any modern democracy causes by an unwillingness to make any form of structural reform is well know as its is ultra conservative social nature ( its the most unwelcoming of all modern economies to inward movement of people and investment).
All in a all Japan has a big structural issue that will mean increases defence spending is going to be a problem… Japanese have a tendency to ignore their national debt issue and just keep spending to make their nation perfect ( this is a nation with manhole covers that cost around £300 each..because they must be lovely.)..something will give at some point.
“something will give at some point” Well as long as it not the manhole covers – not at that price anyway …
I wouldn’t be broadcasting how expensive they are BTW – you’ll have whole tranches of UK based ‘travelling’ scrap men booking trips and Mercx ships for that bounty.
Interestingly they do sell them off after they are no longer used, you can buy them ( used) for around £300…each one is an individual work of art ..some of them are amazing…look up Japanese manhole covers. To be honest I’m looking at importing one myself.
They seem to be overly intricate & a waste of money -no wonder their GDP is fucked.
but yes Id buy one ..
Yes japan is a in nasty death spiral from an economic point of view and I’m not sure they can dig themselves out of it, as they will not even admit they are in the hole…to buy a house in Japan is to loss almost all the money you invested in it ( houses in Japan depreciate like consumer goods)…It refuses to show any fiscal responsibility simply buying whatever it wants, it’s corporations are obsessed with perfection over profit, it’s got one of the worst demographic timebomb..but refuses to allow any immigration ( if you are not ethnically Japanese you will never really be a citizen)…
It’s a wonderful place but I’m not sure the Japanese are really willing to make any compromises around economic reality vs what they wish their reality to be.
Very interesting and informative article and reminds us of the other side of the “Threat Coin”.
In Europe we are very much focussed on what is happening in Ukraine, Gaza and the Arabian Sea and how those affect us. We tend to overlook or ignore the much bigger threat from China, that may be due to distance, SEP or just sheer “how the heck do we deal with a problem the size of China”.
Simple fact is Japan moving to “pro active Pacifism” is just the logical next step to a long slow build up in Japans Defence capabilities and how it sees itself in the World. And they aren’t alone S. Korea, Australia and India are all heading the same way and starting to flex their Military and Industrial muscles.
Ten years ago would anyone have foreseen the following.
S Korea selling more MBTs and SPGs to NATO countries than the US and Germany combined !
Japan actively engaging in a Tri Partite partnership with U.K and Italy to develop e the GCAP 6th generation Fighter ! Or exporting Frigates to Indonesia and possible Australia !
India deploying and supporting a modern fleet of indigenous built warships into the Arabian Sea to carry out anti-Piracy patrols. And doing a pretty good job of it as well !
Australia deciding to increase the size of its Navy / Airforce in partnership with U.K / US and thinking about doing so with Japan. And signing off on their largest single Defence agreement to acquire a fleet of SSN and invest in our country to help get them built !
Nope nore would I, but it’s all happening.
FYI everyone looks at the huge Chinese Navy and compares it just to the USN. Just step back and add the fleets of Japan, S Korea and the future enlarged RAN and the numbers and capabilities get very interesting.
By 2030 S Korea and Japan will have 53 modern SSK between them 27/24 which is more than China has.
If only we in Europe would step up to the mark regarding Russia in the same way 😩
You must remember japan does not just have a china issue it also has a Russia issue and still has an ongoing territorial dispute. Basically japan feels that Russia occupies part of Japan..the four disputed islands have been occupied by Russia since 1945 and are visible from Japan ( the Russians and Japanese can actually see each other across disputed territory).
we sometimes forget that Russia is as much a pacific Asian power as a European one….infact its one of the key thing’s Europeans forget about Russia…it’s not European, it’s as much culturally Asian as European.
The U.j must look to move away from the SSN and design and build a modern Oberon type boat. The few astute submarine we have will always be somewhere else other than at home . A modern o eron /up holder class like design shouldn’t cost the earth to build them, they’d have small crews, be fairly cheap to operate
Their armed forces definitely show that they have abandoned the ‘self-defence’ force that they had. Their future defence projects are impressive as well. Having a proficient armed forces in the Knick of time when you have North Korea, China and Russia in the neighborhood is fortuitous.
This is not new or in the knick of time…You have to remember from around 1960 onward Japan has significantly increased its navy due to its perception of china and Russia as very close and untrustworthy neighbours…So when the rest of the west suffered the “end of history” nonsense from 1991 and started cutting its naval forces from 1990 onward( because history had ended and the west had won..such BS” ..Japan has kept on expanding ( mainly due to china)..the only real difference in its stance now is a philosophical one and really it’s not much different, as Japan only ever had a semi Pacifist stance..in that it would wage war in direct defence of Japan and not in japans wider interests. so where as the UK, NATO and the US have waged wars around wider interest..Japan would not have..but in the modern age it’s always been a major western pacific navel power, just not a global navel power…but that means it’s been able to lever more local regional power than say the RN or Royale, who are global navies and because of this have had to sacrifice some level of Regional power to maintain a global navy.
As you said, building up their forces since the 90s to what they are today. So it is Knick of time considering the military preparedness of many states in the world currently and also the trouble that the world is seeing today.
Interestingly the UK and french defence budgets have aways been a good degree larger than the Japanese defence budget…in real terms as well as percentage of GDP…the issue is that both France and the Uk have had to do a lot of different things with its defence budge…Japan has Simply been able to focus on an intense green water conflict with either china or Russia on its doorstep..that focus. buys a lot of stuff…the UK and France..have to think globally and that means
1) nuclear tipped ballistic missile submarines
2) carrier based fixed wing aviation
3) nuclear powered attack submarines
4) strategic airlift
5) strategic sea lift and amphibious capability
6) deployable heavy armour and combined arms
7) fleet resupply
so Japan has a huge green water fleet of electric boats around 20…but these boats can only fight around Japan…6000 miles range and a cruise speed of 6knots..a large escort fleet of 40 ships..but only 2 replenished vessels of 25,000 tones and 3 at 15,000 tones…vs the RNs 7 replenishment vessels all over 30,000 tons…and most importantly Japan has no ballistic missile nuclear submarines…the RNs funds are eaten by the need to to deploy globally, the need for fixed wing carrier aviation ( if your fighting away form home you need a carrier)m the need for SSNs ( electric boats are shite at strategic mobility)..as well as the at sea deterrent….so in reality if we just wanted a frigate navy and electric boat navy to fight a war in the North Sea and Norwegian Sea we could have as many escorts and electric boats as Japan…but for most of its wars the UK will have to send the RN a long way away and that costs huge amounts….as well as maintain our own nuclear deterrent.
it’s the same with the Japanese land forces…they are very light compared to a European army…it’s MBT is only 40 tons vs the 60 tones of a challenge 2 or 3..
basically Japan has been able to get value for money as it’s only designed to fight a war in East China Sea, Sea of Japan and Philippine sea and western pacific…it’s prepared well for that but it’s ignored rest of the world and because of that is profoundly dependent on others to maintain its access to trade routes…for instance if china ever decided to impose a distant blockade and the rest of the world did not intervene..Japan would have a very big problem.
but they are a very good counter weight to china…the big problem is at preset they do not not have a mutual defence agreement with the US or any other pacific power in that they would support the US outside of Japan..so if china invaded Taiwan and the U.S. went to war..if china did not initiate an attack on Japan it would not support the US or Taiwan ( the U.S. actually specifically wrote the treaty it has with Japan in that way)….unless china attacked Japan as part of a strategic surprise attack on US military infrastructure in the western pacific..it’s very likely Japan would sit a war out….the western pacific is geostrategically and geopolitically very interesting at present and the Chinese need to unified with Tiawan could go a number of ways.
All good points you have made.
The Japanese helicopter destroyers are being modified to house VTOL F35 fighters giving them a much further strike reach. South Korea is doing the same with theirs.
These sample upgrades that thier armed forces are conducting causes pause to most adversaries and also gives the US some freedom to concentrate elsewhere in the pacific once completed.
I am confident the Japanese armed forces can take on Godzilla when he comes back around again. 🙂
I know since the second world war, Japan after the war rebuilt itself and become a world leading economy, they have never sought after all these years to become aggressive to anyone ,china has shown its true face or more so communists looking for trouble that run china ,Japan will be a cut throat razor to china’s throat ,good luck to Japan of whom I admire greatly, but the political fxxxxxxg crap we have if they were on fire I would not piss on them ,bottom line Japan knows what is coming and taking steps to do something about it ,us ,useless fxxxxxxg tory government doing sod all as usual, thank god that pile of rancid crap will be gone
Were our government is coming from on Defence is Ridiculous 🙄 nothing seems to wake them up.
Andrew, your spot on ,
A resolute NO to the CCPs territorial ambitions & existing illegal seizure of the SCS atols is essential to deter any further illegal, even genocidal acts(Such as would likely happen if the PLA invaded Taiwan). People must be given peace & freedom, not threatened with oppression & tyranny. The world is not a game of Risk.
If the USA withdraws from being de facto world policeman, at least by weakening allied commitments, then all the brutal dictators are left free to ravage across the planet. Our European fetish for the illusory “peace dividend” is way past its sell by date & we must ramp up our own contributions. The elephant in the room is the impoverisation of public funds as the wealthiest out out of funding the societies that have enabled their riches.
You never deter aggression with record weakness.
That should be opt out, not out out. Ran out of time to edit.
Japan must have greater concerns than anyone over Americas potential isolationism. They have 2 large adversaries with expansion on their minds on there doorstep. Can see them looking for a new best friend if that is the route America chooses.
The US is not going “isolationist”. That’s a European canard. The US has absolutely no problem with Japan and its other allies in the Pacific and the US is very heavily focused and committed to their defense. The US is shifting forces to the Pacific to meet the Chinese threat. What irks the US is a number of European nations refusing to contribute to their own defense and expecting the US to spend its resources and commit its blood to their defense. The Chinese threat is much more formidable than the Russian one. The Europeans could aid global stability and defend the interests of the Democratic allies if it just did its fair share, which it refuses to do. Is that too much to ask?
Like it did in Afghanistan at the costs of hundreds of European lives. only for America to shaft us at the end when they got board of it. America cares only for itself.
Exactly
Hb from memory America gave due notice they were pulling out of Afghan. A thousand years of occupation may have been required to make that place a dreamy western democracy. I give way to those who have served, they have their own insights.
My thoughts are that the general population of Afghanistan are in the main very hospitable and open to new ideas, especially when they see a benefit. However what is holding them back are their Imans. In the main they are trained in Pakistan. Where the schools have an underlying anti-western ethos.
When we were doing the meet and greets with villagers. Bringing in doctors, engineers etc. it was the Imans sticking to their dogma, holding back any progress or development.
My personal feelings were that the Imans were the major hurdle. Where they felt we were usurping their power and undermining their religious hold on the people.
Most villagers hated the Taliban and Isis especially. They would go out if their way to inform us if any Isis were about.
Sadly the progress that was being made, was enthusiastically dumped by Trump. Yes it would have taken at least another 5 years. But I firmly believe, Afghanistan would have been a better place for it!
DB thank you for reply. So hard to know how Afghan could have turned out. Maybe us or the neocons could have produced a democracy or maybe settled for a functioning tribal society observing a level of human rights. All the neighbours of Afghan not friendly to western ambitions there.
Europe should do more to defend itself.
Not at all. I couldn’t agree more. Uk and the EU should do more. But the US does have previous for going it alone and if that’s the path you choose then so be it. It’s not a dig. Just an observation. Countries like ours and Japan should prepare accordingly. In fairness to Japan they appear to be and we don’t. Have a good day!
Can I just say ‘Jesus Christ’ …
Can we leave the navies of USA, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia to be a bulwark to Chinese expansionism and aggression?….and stay the heck out of it and focus on the Euro-Atlantic area?
As the Chinese are hacking UK elections and setting up bases in North Africa. Good luck with that.
I am sure that GCHQ is doing their best to deal with Chinese hacking.
Not sure what we could do to prevent the Chinese establishing bases in North Africa – do you think we should be trying to stop them doing that? Good luck with that!
As long as we leave a vacuum, someone else will fill it.
Unfortunately Graham, the NATO treaty as written and interpreted since 9/11 means it’s almost inevitable that a U.S. china war will end up triggering article 5…china will do something to the U.S. mainland as it cannot win a war without attacking the enemy at home. As soon as it does the US would trigger article 5 and there we are..Infact china will probably do something relatively quickly..it’s main offensive doctrine is based on taking the fight to the enemies home via all possible means to destroy its societal and political will to fight the war..this would include, terrorists attack, sabotage, actions to create political instability, cyber warfare and any other way it could think it could get away with that would not trigger a MAD.
Honestly when you look at Chinese doctrine around how it will fight the long war, our ties via treaty and history it’s a war we will “VERY”end up fighting…even if for some reason we did not get sucked in via NATO there would be a very good chance of contagion through opportunistic actions ( just as WW2 spread ) it’s very likely if Russia was freed in Ukraine it would use US distraction to do something, as would North Korea and Iran….with the U.S. fully engaged it’s likely all the nasty authoritarians would do a bit of empire building.
As I’ve said before the only real roads we have away from that are either:
1) the US and world disengaging with the defence of Taiwan..securing other means around semi conductor supply and tell the Republic of china it has to sort its own relationship with china…..then if china did invade ( which it would at some point unless the republic of China choose to reintegrate) slap a load of sanctions on china for being bad….what this approach would do is likely take the heat out of things in this decade as well as disengage the west from an inevitable conflict with china…as a Taiwan without the U.S. as a big brother is something china would likely think it had time to work on ( it needs integration by 2046 for cultural and historic reasons) but with the US defending Tiawan china thinks it needs to get Taiwan done ( invaded and haves its war with the US) at the point of its maximum strength to take on the the U.S. and china will be at the hight of its strategic power in 2027-2030…which means it has to act this decade.That would avoid a war…the West would have t make it very clear that it’s only Taiwan as it acknowledges that’s a Chinese internal issue and any further expansion would trigger a western response….but contrary to popular believe about most things China would likely happily negotiate and compromise…it will not with Taiwan as it considers it part of china and an almost sacred mission to reunite…if the Chinese communist party and china had a state religion..it would be unification.
2) If the US will not disengage from the Defence of Tiawan the west needs to undertake possibly the largest deterrent programme since the Cold War…that’s everyone pouring in 5% GDP…and making sure china thinks we will go all the way if pushed….if the US is instant on defending Tiawan we have to convince china that the west can and will engage and win world war 3 whatever the cost….that’s the only way we could avoid a war.
Our ( the wests) present approach of insisting we will defend a position that we know is essentially pissing all over an apposing powers single most important red line..while refusing to prepare for or really develop a deterrent for a war that same apposing power is preparing for and saying will happen if we don’t change our tack, is quite frankly geopolitically incompetence of the highest order. I suspect this present generation of present western political leaders may just be damed by history.
my honest view is that Taiwan is not worth fighting world war three over…
Interestng comments – Just to clarify is it Taiwan or Republic Of China- or does that depend on the point you are trying to make..
It’s both..you can sort of use them interchangeably to be honest, but it is a bit inaccurate and sloppy…( as everyone is). It’s sort of like Great Britain and the United Kingdom…( infact it’s very similar the geographic name of the island is Taiwan and the formal name of the government is the republic of China…so the same as the UK and Great Britain terminology)
It gets a bit complicated around Taiwan because you have to remember the Republic of China ( government of “Taiwan” ) also considers itself the government of the whole of china…and names itself the government of China.
in the same way as the Peoples republic of China is the government of the mainland of “China”, but it also considered itself the government of Taiwan..
Taiwan as a country does not really exist legally in any sense..you simply have two governments of china…one happens to be camped on the mainland and one camped on the island of Taiwan…with both parties in a civil war that actually never ended, just bogged down in stalemate ( the republic of China will never be able to remove the people’s republic of China and the people’s republic of China were not able to undertake a successful amphibious assault on the island and by the time they were the US had waded in on one side of the civil war).
It’s the main reason that in my bones I think the west really needs to drop it unless we are truly willing to do what it takes to fight a world war and win.
After all imagine in the future if the UK had a civil war and we had two sides called say the “United Kingdom” and the “republic of the United kingdom” and the losing side ( in this case the republic of the United Kingdom) retreated to and fortified northen Ireland..setting up an alternate government of the UK…if an outside nation then told the main winning “UK” government it could not remove that losing “republic of the UK” government and reclaim norther Ireland..what do you think the UK government and British people who followed that government would do. ( I would suggest we would arm up and prepare for war and tell that other interfering nation to go screw itself)….this is effectively what the US and west has told china…now you many not like the Chinese communist party ( and I don’t like them at all) but if you get into the heads of the people’s republic of China and consider what we would do if faced with the same….you can see why we “the west” have stomped all over someone else’s red lines and are heading for war unless we either step away from that line or convince china it will loss and loss everything.
The NATO Treaty and especially Article 5 has always been clear. An attack on one member nation requires all members to respond. If China attacks the US, then Article 5 is triggered. I don’t believe the US has to trigger Article 5 – NATO’s North Atlantic Council does that.
Members can respond in whatever way they want to an Article 5 shout – that is a national decision – theoretically a member might send a strongly worded ‘note of protest’ to the Chinese government and apply some sanctions! But when the NAC called Article 5 last time, all NATO nations sent forces to Afghanistan.
I agree that Taiwan is not worth fighting WW3 over.
The attack has to be in the confines of mainland North America, Europe or certain European islands. As Jonathan pointed out, it’s an attack on the US homeland (excluding Hawaii) that can trigger article 5. However, if China took Guam for instance, you’d better buy your stocks of toilet paper, because it would just be a matter of time.
And so should we… (UK)
It’s good news, Another nation increasing it’s military might to oppose the evil CCP.