CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Jennifer Lind: Japan, the Never Normal

by Guest Blogger for Sheila A. Smith
November 30, 2012

Buildings are silhouetted against the setting sun in front of Mount Fuji in Tokyo December 2, 2009 Buildings are silhouetted against the setting sun in front of Mount Fuji in Tokyo December 2, 2009 (Gary Hershorn/Courtesy Reuters).


This blog post is part of a series entitled Is Japan in Decline?, in which leading experts analyze Japan’s economy, politics, and society and give their assessment of Japan’s future.

For some reason we scholars, policy analysts, and journalists seem unable to see Japan as normal. No matter what Japan does, people view it through the lens of extremes. In the 1970s and ‘80s, when Japan’s economy grew rapidly, we concluded that Japan had created a miraculous strain of capitalism that would propel it to overtake the United States and achieve global supremacy. Then Japan’s bubble burst, and the slide began. Analysts now suggest that Japan is in terminal decline. Reading the news, one might conclude that in 100 years, there will only be eleven Japanese people left, all octogenarians.

Japan’s foreign policy is also cast in extremes. After World War II, the country pursued a restrained national security policy nested within an alliance with the United States; it built an impressive military with which to assist in Soviet containment. Many analysts and international relations scholars observed Tokyo’s restraint, disregarded the impressive military, and declared Japan to be a disarmed pacifist nation whose postwar norms and institutions had led it to eschew military statecraft.

Now we’re in the midst of a full pendulum swing, with observers proclaiming that Japan’s worsening relations with China are leading to the end of pacifism and a rise of Japanese nationalism. In the September flare-up of the two countries’ island dispute, mobs in Beijing burned and looted Japanese businesses, waving signs calling for genocide of the Japanese people. Japan’s prime minister Yoshihiko Noda responded with restraint, calmly urging the Chinese government to rein in the violence. Ironically, in the months since the riots, articles in the world’s leading newspapers warn of a nationalist wave sweeping Japan, and discuss the ascent of the hawks in Japanese politics. Just to be clear: Japan’s “hawks” are leaders who, in any other political setting, would be the most dovish in the room; leaders who advocate a grand strategy slightly to the left of Canada; leaders who responded to Chinese eliminationalist rhetoric by urging for peace and respect for international law.

Japan is not pacifist, but nor is it aggressive and militarist. It is not an economic Godzilla, nor is it a home for the aged. It is a normal middle power.

Those that cast Japan in these extremes are not merely wrong, they lead us to overlook the central role that Japan can play in the East Asian balance of power. With the exception of the United States and possibly China, no other country has a better mix of the building blocks of power and influence that Japan has. For hundreds of years, power has stemmed from economic output (GDP), wealth per person (GDP per capita), total population size, technological base, and political stability. Perhaps democracy should be a modern addition to that list.

On those six dimensions, Japan is only clearly surpassed by the United States. No country in Europe has Japan’s combination of economic might and population. By comparison, the UK—a leading state among the middle powers—has half Japan’s population and half its GDP. Germany, Europe’s powerhouse, has two-thirds of Japan’s population and GDP. Even China, a country in the process of surpassing Japan on the critical measures of national power, has some big problems with its fundamentals. Although China has a massive, hard-working population, and hence a very large GDP, most of its people are poor, its government appears wracked with corruption, and it faces significant challenges to its political stability.

Japan, of course, has problems too. Its population is aging, so its GDP will likely remain flat for some time (as number three in the world), even if it can generate healthy productivity growth from its shrinking workforce. Japan’s democracy is stable, but its political system has produced nine governments in thirteen years. And Japan faces a big soft-power deficit because of persistent disputes over history with its neighbors. But these challenges notwithstanding, Japan’s overall portfolio boasts sterling fundamentals: a large, wealthy, democratic, educated, tech-savvy population, with a powerful military to boot.

Recognizing Japan’s potential—and viewing it as normal—should open our eyes to how useful Japan could be. Viewing Japan as pacifist leads us to overlook the normal role it can play in East Asia; viewing Japan as militarist makes us afraid to trust it as a true partner.

For the past six decades Japan has been punching well below its weight. Not only did Japan rely on the United States for its security, it subsumed its security policy within this alliance, content to play the role of junior partner. The United States, for its part, agreed that the best role for Japan in the alliance was a minimal one (we provide the forces, you provide the bases). But today, Washington and Tokyo should consider whether it’s time for Japan to play a more normal role in the alliance and in international politics that befits its actual potential.

Jennifer Lind is associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, and a faculty associate at the Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies at Harvard University.

Post a Comment 4 Comments

  • Posted by Kathryn Ibata-Arens

    Japan as “normal and militarist”

    Jennifer Lind says, “Just to be clear: Japan’s “hawks” are leaders who, in any other political setting, would be the most dovish in the room”. This is true for the vast majority of Japanese politicians. Unfortunately, Japan also has a small, but extremely vocal (belligerent even) group of right wing nationalists.

    Recent political bluster making news headlines in Japan – prompted by pronouncements made by these politicians is telling.

    Having just been in Tokyo last week, I can tell you that the recent announcement by Shintaro Ishihara that his newly formed Sunrise Party (in Japanese “taiyo no to” is actually “party of the sun”) would merge forces with the conservative mayor of Osaka Toru Hashimoto’s “isshin no kai” or “Restoration Party” – amid calls made by Ishihara for a “shin gun” or “new military” are a bit scary.

    The Chinese blogosphere is also abuzz with this news (the Japanese national government purchase of Senkaku precipitated by the posturing of Ishihara about buying them).

    Some of my Japanese friends say that this is just typical pre-election hype by Ishihara, while others share my concern. What do you think?

  • Posted by Alan Engel

    Tsukuba, Japan. Overall, this is an excellent article. However, Prof. Lind grossly misreads Japan’s hawks, particularly ex-Governor Ishihara. She should at least browse the “Hate China” and “Hate Korea” literature at the local bookstores. Although Japan’s hate groups, with Ishihara as their figurehead, constitute only 10-20% of the population, they are definitely punching above weight. Their objectives are clear: isolate Japan from China, and rewrite Japan’s militarist past.

  • Posted by Yoshimichi Moriyama

    Of the seven essays I read today, I found in Prof. Lind’s more things I agreed to.

  • Posted by Istvan Zoltan Zardai

    Kathryn, you are surely right that there is a small revisionist and/or very nationalist fraction within Japan. However that is true of the US, Germany, the UK, and other EU countries as well. In itself being nationalist is not necessarily wrong – patriotism might even be seen as something useful for a community – but as in Japan some of these right-wing parties and groups are also xenophobic, they loath to admit that the nation state of which they are citizens has ever committed serious wrongs, etc. If you look at Japan in general, people are extremely cautious about the sides they take. If military nationalism would be very strong and widely endorsed Abe’s government would have long ago managed to revise article 9 of the constitution. It will probably happen now, after years of political maneuvering. Also, if you look at things rationally, even though Japan is enjoying the US’s assistance, this does not mean that it makes sense for it not to have an army it can deploy if needed. China is one of the countries – alongside Russia, also Japan’s neighbor – that has actually occupied foreign territory by military power since the end of the second world war. No other country has endorsed the type of constraint on their military that Japan did, namely to have a strong, but almost entirely defense-oriented military. Under such circumstances how irrational is it really to have a military that is capable or preemptive strikes? (And I’m not saying that war is good or necessary. The best thing would be if all countries would have a clause 9, and also there would be no internal conflicts anywhere.)

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required