Japan’s Foreign and Security Policy under Abe: from neoconservatism and neoautonomy to pragmatic realism

«М’ЯКА СИЛА» ЯК ХАРАКТЕРНА ОЗНАКА ПОЛІТИЧНОГО ВПЛИВУ ВЕЛИКОЇ ДЕРЖАВИ ЗАУМОВ БАГАТОПОЛЯРНОГО СВІТУ В ЛАТИНОАМЕРИКАНСЬКОМУ РЕГІОНІ

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2022

This research seeks to explore how the vast GCC sovereign wealth funds (SWF) can provide a vehicle for the development of the foreign security policy of these countries using constructivist paradigm. Although mostly small in sizes except for Saudi Arabia, the GCC countries with their extensive energy wealth are gradually becoming major players on the world stage. This was especially highlighted during the 2007-08 international financial crisis when GCC countries were visited by Western politicians requesting their assistance in bailing out failing financial institutions especially American banks. Gulf Cooperation Council sovereign wealth funds took the initiatives to invest in these failing Western financial institutions without much guarantee about returns on their investments which can be interpreted in different ways. Firstly, it could be interpreted as an effort to support the United States for example for its security guarantee or secondly as a means for these countries to gain influence (Behrendt, 2008). The increasing level of GCC sovereign wealth funds constituting at least 40% of global SWF and their reach in investments globally signal increased geopolitical meaning. However, the fund managers and the countries they originate have indicated that their investments are business transactions intended for purposes such as future generation and pension funds. Bahgat (2011) however indicates that GCC's SWF could have some foreign and security policy undertone. Over the years GCC countries have developed their security and foreign policies based on ‘bandwagoning’ realist paradigm in which the United States or the United Kingdom serve as proxy protector from challenges within and without. With some of the highest spending on their military and the changes in the political dynamics with globalisation and their own development, GCC countries while maintaining their ‘bandwagoning’ policies, have been emboldened by their wealth and military capability in term of military hardware. Ehteshami and Hinnebusch (2013) in seeking to clarify the GCC foreign and security policies in this new era indicates that it is complex realism because it provides a means for the countries of the GCC to continue to seek the protection of their Western allies, especially the United States and the United Kingdom while also flexing their own muscle. It is for this reason that Young (2015:15) asserts that the current foreign policy direction of the GCC is punctuated by the ‘balancing of realist concerns for state power and survival with domestic environments accommodating diverse constituents and structural considerations of the international systems’. Young (2013) also indicates that the GCC has change direction in its foreign and security policies to become interventionist. Intervention in Bahrain during the Arab Spring of 2011 as well as recent intervention in Yemen shows the changes that have come to mark the GCC. The deduction from the above discourse on GCC's foreign and security policy is that it has always been assessed using positivist approaches which fail to reconcile agency and structure issues in the foreign and security policy making. The use of constructivist methods in this work from the point of view of sovereign wealth funds provides means of exploring various themes both from agency and structure. In other words, how does the institutions and the policy makers affect GCC foreign and security policy making? Key Words: Development, GCC, SWF, Security, Foreign Policy.

From today's viewpoint, 2016 may well represent the end of the post‐Cold War era and the general assumptions that are associated with it. These include the beliefs that the United States remains a European power, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of its European NATO allies, that liberal democracy represents the political system widely seen as the only legitimate normative reference point, and that the future of the European Union will be defined by continued integration into an ‘ever closer Union’. These assumptions have been shaken to the core.

This chapter takes stock of “the common” in the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Doing so, the chapter analyses the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) both in terms of institutions and substantive policies. Showing how European Union (EU) foreign policies after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty have partially been crafted without the necessary institutional consolidation, it sheds light on the many policy challenges that EU diplomacy is confronted with. Cases that this chapter analyses by way of illustration are policies in reaction to the so-called “Arab Spring” and the transnational war in Syria, the EU’s foreign policy performance at the Iran nuclear talks, and the impact of the “Ukraine crisis” on both the EU’s foreign policy manoeuvrability and the perception thereof in other parts of the world. Likewise, the 2015 refugee crisis has become a stress test for common foreign policy responses, and will therefore be assessed in its impact on the perception of EU foreign policy. Finally, the chapter also touches upon the Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and its intricate interplay between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) structures and EU autonomous defence instruments. The European Union’s credibility as a foreign policy actor, it will be argued, hinges on its ability to both formulate common strategies and policies internally, and to hold such policies up in the face of third parties in order to see such European foreign policies implemented beyond declaratory rhetoric.

The text reviews the main characteristics of and milestones for the Czech foreign, security and defence policy since 1993. The Czech foreign and security policy is a relatively stable and Europeanised endeavour. It is firmly embedded in the European institutions, but is dependent on a very immature political debate. While foreign and security policy considerations guided Czech politics in the beginning, they have moved from the foreground lately and have given way to domestic issues. The foreign policy ended with the accession to NATO and the EU for the Czech public debate, and there is insufficient understanding of external relations among the politicians. Czech political parties, as a result, lack expertise on foreign policy. Domestic considerations trump foreign policy thinking and Czech behaviour on the international scene is often trapped by domestic politicking. The resulting incoherent policy does not provide Czechs with much leverage in European negotiations, which in turn feeds the populist and isolationist voices at home.

This chapter reviews the main characteristics of—and milestones for—the Czech foreign, security and defence policy since 1993. The Czech foreign and security policy is a relatively stable and Europeanised endeavour. It is firmly embedded in the European institutions, but is dependent on a very immature political debate. While foreign and security policy considerations guided Czech politics in the beginning, they have moved from the foreground as of late and have given way to domestic issues. The foreign policy ended with the accession to NATO and the EU for the Czech public debate, and there is insufficient understanding of external relations among the politicians. Czech political parties, as a result, lack expertise on foreign policy. Domestic considerations trump foreign policy thinking and Czech behaviour on the international scene is often trapped by domestic politicking. The resulting incoherent policy does not provide Czechs with much leverage in European negotiations, which in turn feeds the populist and isolationist voices at home.

This article examines the main aspects of the UKs foreign and security policy across the 2005–2010 Parliament. It begins by discussing the highpoint of foreign policy during the period, and goes on to consider the evolution of the UKs foreign policy doctrine, looking in particular at whether Brown established a world view that was distinctive from his predecessor. The analysis then turns to the key foreign policy actors in the period and in particular the extent to which changes of foreign secretary impacted on the UKs foreign and security policy. The article assesses the foreign and security policy issues that predominated from after the 2005 General Election, through Browns anointment as Prime Minister in 2007 and until the 2010 General Election. The final part of the article considers the minimal role that foreign policy played in the 2010 General Election campaign. There was a considerable convergence of views between each of the three main political parties in their foreign policy platforms. Labour faced criticism for its resourcing of the war in Afghanistan, rather than objection to continuing engagement. The renewal of the Trident weapons system was one of the few substantive issues dividing the Conservatives and Labour from the Liberal Democrats.

The member states of the European Union (EU) coordinate, define, and implement foreign policy in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This policy area, often referred to as EU foreign policy, has a broad scope covering all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to security and defense. The CFSP is supported by a unique institutional framework, in which member states diplomats and officials from the EU institutions jointly make policy. It is led by the High Representative, who is the “face and voice” of EU foreign policy, and supported by the substantial European External Action Service and 140 EU delegations in other countries and international organizations. Because foreign policy is normally the business of sovereign states, the exceptional nature of the CFSP has long been a subject of inquiry. The CFSP has particularly puzzled advocates of the traditional theories of European integration and international relations, who have failed to appreciate what the EU does in the field of high politics. Given the absence of formal diplomatic recognition and a strong reliance on the resources of the member states, the EU is still not a full-fledged actor, yet it has a strong international presence nonetheless. Its presence and the gradual increase in “actorness” have also raised questions about whether the EU presents a different type of actor, a civilian or normative power, which derives its influence from nontraditional sources of power. Under the assumption that the EU has some actorness, the Europeanization of foreign policy has become an area of interest. Member states can act through the EU structure to achieve more impact internationally, can adjust national foreign policy on the basis of EU positions, and are socialized into greater European coordination. The relationship between national and EU foreign policy is thus a significant topic of debate. Finally, governance perspectives increasingly provide insight into the organization of the CFSP. How the member states and the EU institutions collectively coordinate, define, and implement EU foreign policy is not only an important question in itself but also matters for policy outcomes.

This study aims to comprehensively address the foreign policy cooperation processes shaped at the European Union (EU) level, especially in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), through the concept of Europeanization. In-depth analysis of the effects of the EU's integration and cooperation processes in the field of foreign policy on the national foreign policies of the member states is of great importance in understanding how this interaction is shaped both at the European and national levels. In this framework, it will be analyzed in detail how the EU's common foreign policy practices, which have been developed to increase its global influence, have harmonized with national interests and how they have sometimes come into conflict with these interests. Thus, it will be revealed how the EU's foreign policy strategies and national foreign policy dynamics interact. In this context, this study aims to examine the challenges faced by the EU in the foreign policy-making process and the historical, theoretical and practical obstacles in solving these challenges within the framework of the concept of Europeanization. It aims to analyze the development of foreign policy cooperation within the EU, especially in the period starting with the Maastricht Treaty, and the balance between the member states' desire to protect their national sovereignty and their efforts to establish a common foreign policy. In doing so, the scope and dimensions of the Europeanization process of national foreign policies in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy will be discussed and the formation process of the EU foreign policy and the important turning points in this process will be analyzed.

In its aim to become a global security actor, the EU is increasingly undertaking civilian and military crisis missions all over the world. These missions are based on the European security and defence policy (ESDP) which forms an integral part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The Treaty of Lisbon seems to mirror the Union’s global security ambitions as it addresses the European security and defence policy in a whole new treaty section. However, European missions still depend on willing Member States to make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of its security and defence policy. The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between the European Union and the Member States in the fi eld of the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy and whether the Treaty of Lisbon manages to clarify the situation. What constraints, if any, do the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy impose on the Member States regarding the conduct of their national foreign policy? The article argues that the relationship between the EU and the Member States can only be determined after an examination of the binding nature of primary and secondary CFSP law as well as of international agreements concluded by the Union.

The article analyzes the changes in the security environment of Slovakia, which took place after the annexation of the Crimea and the situation in eastern Ukraine. This changed the strategic situation not only in Central and Eastern Europe, but de facto in the European and transatlantic defense complex. These strategic changes not only changed the existing situation that existed since the end of the Cold War, but led to a paradigm shift in security policy. Today, besides defense, citizens of Slovakia also define other vectors, in particular energy, ecological, and cybernetic. They are clearly international in nature, and therefore the Slovak foreign policy and diplomacy must take them into account more intensively than before, possibly to the detriment of other activities. In order to realize its security interests, the Slovak Republic uses its membership in international (NATO, UN) and regional (Visegrad Four, EU, OSCE) organizations and associations, developing its capabilities, flexibility, and mutually reinforcing cooperation. NATO membership is the determining factor in Slovak foreign security.The benefits of this study are consideration of the issues of European security and its interconnectedness with the policy of the Slovak Republic is relevant and at the same time complicated. This is due to the transformation of the European security system and the security and foreign policy of Slovakia as a result of a number of factors.First, the main factors determining the security of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the security policy paradigm that existed in Europe since the end of the Cold War, have changed. The second important factor is Slovakia’s response to these changes, because the foreign policy priorities of the country have not yet been determined. In this regard, in the formulation and implementation of the security policy of Slovakia in 2014, there was a period of systemic changes through the annexation by the Russian Federation of Crimea. The Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, on the one hand, sought to maintain the neutral nature of foreign policy, while the Ministry of Defense did not react to changes. The third factor, which is also closely related to others, is a difficult task, accordingly, to find consensus on the destruction of some of the key priorities of the foreign and security policy of Slovakia, which would lead to the adoption by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs of a comprehensive plan to counter foreign policy challenges, addressed to the Visegrad Four, the Eastern Partnership, the EU and NATO.

The EU’s ambitions to be a global power are a surprising by-product of European integration. Students of European foreign policy mostly focus on EU trade, aid, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). But the national foreign policy activities of its member states cannot be neglected. On most economic issues, the EU is able to speak with a single voice. It has more difficulty showing solidarity on aid policy but is powerful when it does. The Union’s external policy aspirations now extend to traditional foreign and security policy. But distinct national policies persist, and the EU suffers from fragmented leadership. The chapter begins by considering the development of EU foreign policy and then considers how a national system of foreign policies exists alongside EU policies in the area of trade and international development. It then examines the EU’s CFSP and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

The European Union’s ambitions to be a global power are a surprising by-product of European integration. Students of European foreign policy mostly focus on EU trade, aid, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). But the national foreign policy activities of its member states cannot be neglected. On most economic issues, the EU is able to speak with a genuinely single voice. It has more difficulty showing solidarity on aid policy but is powerful when it does. The Union’s external policy aspirations now extend to traditional foreign and security policy. But distinct national policies persist, and the EU suffers from fragmented leadership. The chapter begins by considering the development of EU foreign policy and then considers how a national system of foreign policies exists alongside EU policies in the area of trade and international development. It then examines the EU’s CFSP and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

International Relations of the European Union