Kee** the Dragon at Bay: The South China Sea Dispute in Japan’s Security Strategy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters

Part of the book series: Global Power Shift ((GLOBAL))

Abstract

Japan’s view of the territorial disputes in the South China Sea is intricately linked to its own dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. Amid deteriorating Sino-Japanese relations and strains over the bilateral territorial row in the past few years, Tokyo’s political elites have become increasingly concerned about Bei**g’s growing confidence and assertiveness in its foreign policy. From their perspective, China is pursuing a strategy of cree** expansionism in the maritime domain by challenging the territorial status quo of islands in the South and East China Seas. In its national security planning, Japan is thus seeking to discourage Chinese assertiveness in the East Asian region. As the paper shows, the US-Japan alliance continues to play a key role in Japanese strategic thinking, but it is no longer viewed as sufficient in ensuring security and stability for Japan in the region, particularly vis-à-vis China. The paper demonstrates two areas in which Tokyo is making greater efforts to supplement the alliance’s deterrence function: Firstly, it is enhancing its military ability to discourage and respond to Chinese provocations around the Senkaku Islands, although efforts are constrained by budgetary limits. Secondly, Japan is diversifying its security relations with regional countries, thereby seeking to demonstrate to China that it is not indifferent to Bei**g’s provocations in the South China Sea. The paper draws on a content analysis of Japan’s newest security strategy documents (the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Program Guidelines, both issued in December 2013) as well as recent (Japanese language) papers and commentary by Japanese security experts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Storey (2013, p. 4); Analysis of Japanese White Papers.

  2. 2.

    NDPG (2013).

  3. 3.

    Abe (2012).

  4. 4.

    Kotani (2011), Son (2013, p. 219).

  5. 5.

    Zhang (2011, p. 109).

  6. 6.

    ASEAN Investment Report 2013–2014, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, October 2014, p. 5.

  7. 7.

    Kotani (2014, p. 35).

  8. 8.

    U.S. Forces Japan Official Website, “US Forces in Japan. Welcome”, http://www.usfj.mil/Welcome.html (accessed 15 August 2014).

  9. 9.

    Asahi Shimbun, “Japan, U.S. Agree to Revise Defense Guidelines by End of 2014”, 1 October 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201310010069 (accessed 25 October 2013).

  10. 10.

    NDPG (2013, p. 9).

  11. 11.

    Cf. Kawakami (2012).

  12. 12.

    Cf. Sugawara et al. (2011).

  13. 13.

    Aizawa (2014, p. 119).

  14. 14.

    Keck (2014).

  15. 15.

    Jimbo (2012).

  16. 16.

    Japan Times, “China’s Dangerous Conduct”, 8 February 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/02/08/editorials/chinas-dangerous-conduct/#.U9jyIxAviaM (accessed 14 April 2014).

  17. 17.

    Matsuda (2014, p. 31).

  18. 18.

    Abe (2012).

  19. 19.

    For further details, see Sakaki (2014).

  20. 20.

    NDPG (2013, p. 7 f).

  21. 21.

    NDPG (2013, p. 13 f).

  22. 22.

    Hayashi (2014).

  23. 23.

    Nihon Keizai Shimbun, “Bōei shō, yonaguni jima ni kanshi shisetsu chakkō” [Ministry of Defense begins construction of surveillance station on Yonaguni], 20 April 2014.

  24. 24.

    Nihon Keizai Shimbun, “Ritō bōei ‘kūhaku’ o kaishō, amami ni rikuji, senkaku no kanshi kyōka” [Elimination of the ‘vacuum’ in the defense of remote islands, terrestrial armed forces on the Amami island chain, reinforcing surveillance around the Senkaku Islands], 24 August 2014.

  25. 25.

    Fujiwara et al. (2014).

  26. 26.

    Japan Times, “Japan, South Korea propose three-way summit with China,” 14 November, 2014, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/11/14/national/japan-south-korea-propose-three-way-summit-china/#.VOsDI2NSmPU (accessed 23 Feb 2015).

  27. 27.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan (2014).

  28. 28.

    Pajon (2013).

  29. 29.

    Lee-Brago (2012).

  30. 30.

    Hitoshi (2014).

  31. 31.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan (2011).

  32. 32.

    Aoki (2013).

  33. 33.

    Storey (2013, p. 6).

  34. 34.

    Asahi Shimbun, “Freedom of navigation pits Japan, U.S. against China,” December 26, 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201312260024 (accessed February 10, 2015).

  35. 35.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan (2013).

  36. 36.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan (2013).

  37. 37.

    Kreuzer (2014).

  38. 38.

    Genba (2012).

  39. 39.

    Wallace (2013).

  40. 40.

    Do (2014).

  41. 41.

    Asahi Shimbun, “With Visits to all 10 ASEAN Nations, Abe’s China Containment Strategy Complete”, 18 November 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201311180082 (accessed 25 November 2013).

  42. 42.

    Makino (2012).

  43. 43.

    Heisei 25nen gyōsei jigyō rebyū shiito, nōryoku kōchiku shien jigyō, jigyō bangō 11 [Administrative assessment 2013: Assignment Number 11 on Capability Building Assistance], ed. Japan Ministry of Defense, http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/others/service/kanshi_koritsu/h25_res/r-sheet/0011.pdf (accessed 28 August 2014).

  44. 44.

    Khanh (2014).

  45. 45.

    Esplanada (2014).

  46. 46.

    Fackler (2012).

  47. 47.

    Thayer (2014).

  48. 48.

    Ministry of Defense Japan (2015).

  49. 49.

    Baker and Schlesinger (2014).

  50. 50.

    Yomiuri Shimbun, “Sōbi okusai kaihatsu o suishin, bōeishō soan ‘kihon wa kokusan’ minaoshi” [Promoting the international development of equipment—the Ministry of Defense plans to revise the ‘Basic principle of domestic production’], 4 April 2014.

  51. 51.

    Nikkei Asian Review, “Japan Hopes to Sell Asean on Defense Tech”, 22 August 2014, http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Japan-hopes-to-sell-Asean-on-defense-tech (accessed 24 August 2014).

  52. 52.

    Wallace (2013, p. 490).

  53. 53.

    Asahi Shimbun, “Shūdanteki jieiken, kōshi yōnin ni hantai 63%, sakunen yori zōka” [63% against allowing the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, up from previous year], 7 April 2014.

  54. 54.

    Asahi Shimbun, “Editorial: ‘Development cooperation charter’ could transform Japan’s foreign policy,” February 11, 2015, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201502110030 (accessed February 11, 2015).

  55. 55.

    Hiroshima (2014).

  56. 56.

    Kameda (2015).

  57. 57.

    Reynolds and Takahashi (2015).

  58. 58.

    Asahi Shimbun, “Editorial: ‘Development cooperation charter’ could transform Japan’s foreign policy,” 11 February 2015, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201502110030 (accessed 11 February 2015).

  59. 59.

    Embassy of Japan in Germany, Zum Kabinettsbeschluss zu Maßnahmen für die Gesetzgebung über die Sicherheit vom 1.7.2014 [On the Cabinet decision of 1 July 2014 regarding security legislation measures], http://www.de.emb-japan.go.jp/aktuelles/140701 kabinettsbeschluss.html (accessed 4 July 2014). Two further criteria for exercising the right of collective self-defense are (1) that there are no other effective means available to respond to an attack, and (2) that the use of weapons be restricted to an absolute minimum. Comparable criteria also apply to the exercise of the right of individual self-defense.

  60. 60.

    Nihon Keizai Shimbun, “Shūdanteki jieiken—Kōshi yōken, shūsei isogu, jimin, kōmei ni hairyo, shūnai gōi no kanōsei” [Right to collective self-defense, criteria for application. LDP, in making hasty improvements, shows consideration for Komei Party, agreement possible by the end of this week], 22 June 2014.

  61. 61.

    Asahi Shimbun, “Abe Offers 1st Explanation in Diet, But Many Not Buying It”, 15 July 2014, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201407150054 (accessed 16 July 2014).

  62. 62.

    Prime Minister’s Office (2014).

  63. 63.

    Nihon Keizai Shimbun, “Shūdanteki jieiken—Kōshi yōnin kettei, hantai ga 54%, kyōdōtsūshin yoron chōsa” [Opinion poll conducted by Kyodo news agency: 54% against decision to allow the exercise of the right of collective self-defense], 3 July 2014.

  64. 64.

    Mainichi Shimbun, “Nakatani Bōeishō: Minami shina kai keikai kanshi ‘kongo no kadai’” [Defense Minister Nakatani: Early warning and monitoring in South China Sea is ‘future topic’, 3.2.2015, http://mainichi.jp/select/news/20150204k0000m010045000c.html (accessed February 10, 2015).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Sakaki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sakaki, A. (2016). Kee** the Dragon at Bay: The South China Sea Dispute in Japan’s Security Strategy. In: Fels, E., Vu, TM. (eds) Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation