The Debate over Japan's Strategic Future: Bilateralism versus Regionalism

Abstract

Japan's dramatic postwar ascent as an economic superpower has not been accompanied by a comparable rise in its international political and strategic weight. This much-noted phenomenon has given rise in recent years to growing discussions among Japan's opinion leaders over what the nation's international role should be. Similar in many ways to earlier American Great Debates just prior to World War Two, at the outset of the Cold War, and during the Vietnam War, Japan's recent public dialogues are symptomatic of a nation confronting momentous change in its international role and responsibilities. Lending added urgency to the dialogue are two external forces that together challenge virtually the entire foundation of Japan's postwar international stance: the demise of the Cold War and the perceived relative decline of the United States. Occurring separately, either phenomenon would trigger a broad rethinking of Japan's international posture. Occurring nearly simultaneously, they have called into question the core axioms that have guided Japanese foreign policy since 1945. For four decades after its defeat in World War Two and subsequent occupation, Japan's international position was circumscribed by its patronclient relationship with the United States. Shielded by the American security guarantee, inhibited by fears of revived militarism both at home and among its Asian neighbors, and obliged to defer to U.S. political and strategic leadership under the rigors of the Cold War, successive Japanese leaders clung to the essential elements of the Yoshida Doctrine. Named after Shigeru Yoshida, prime minister on two occasions between 1946 and