Search

Since the 1980s, changing national identities have transformed the China-Taiwan and Korean conflicts. Democratization in Taiwan and South Korea, and liberalization in China, have forced leaders to compete for popular legitimacy by appealing to national identities. Along with the collapse of the Soviet Union, these contested national identities have been the main factors driving change in the conflicts—pushing China and Taiwan inexorably apart and toward a showdown, while helping to sustain what appeared to be a mortally wounded North Korea. This explains why one U.S. ally, Taiwan, has become more hawkish, while the other, South Korea, has turned more dovish. These foreign policy changes, in turn, have reinforced changes in underlying national identities. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the inauguration of the Koizumi administration in 2001, China and Korea (ROK) have repeatedly protested against the visits by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to Yasukuni Shrine. After he stepped down as Prime Minister last September, new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's first official visits to China and Korea helped to reduce, to some extent, the anti-Japanese sentiment in both countries. Although he promised to construct a new relationship of 'strategic reciprocity' with China during his subsequent visit to Beijing in October, his public statement concerning the so-called 'comfort women' issue before the Diet session had revealed his conservative stance on 'statist' nationalism in Japan. After the end of World War II, the Japanese government established and pursued the fundamental national doctrine of maintaining the Japan-US security alliance and gaining economic prosperity under the peace constitution. In other words, Japan adopted and pursued the so-called 'Yoshida Doctrine' as the political symbol of "Small Japan." However, the doctrine has undergone some changes under strong pressure from the conservative leaders like Former Prime Ministers, Nobusuke Kishi, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Junichiro Koizumi. Currently, Prime Minister Abe clearly shows his political will to change the gear in a step-by-step manner from 'Small Japan' to another stance, even if not of "Greater Japan." Even if Mr. Abe maintains "strategic ambiguity" vis-a-vis the neighboring countries, his assertively conservative agenda to change basic political values in Japan, as illustrated in his catch phrase "Beautiful Japan" might cause the neighbors to become more concerned about Japan's future. Their cyclical cautiousness toward Tokyo may very well have a negative impact on the ongoing attempt to build an East Asian community encompassing Japan, China, South Korea, and other countries. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Economic integration has been progressing rapidly in Northeast Asia, particularly among Japan, China, and South Korea, and a large volume of industrial and cultural products flow across the region. Despite high-level economic integration, the three countries have not developed an institutional arrangement to stabilize regional politics. To the contrary, Japan and the other two countries continue to dispute over issues related to Japan?s wartime past, including controversies over Yasukuni shrine and Japan?s history textbooks. Based on the constructivist approach, this paper explains why the three countries fight over these issues, focusing on state identity and politics of recognition. Japan developed its state identity mainly through interactions with the United States. Japanese leaders emphasize that Japan, as a liberal democratic country, has developed a pacifist stance after World War II. They want other countries to recognize that their actions, including the prime minister?s visit to the shrine, are consistent with the pacifist stance. In contrast, the memory of Japan?s past colonial rule plays an important part in China and South Korea?s state identity formation. State leaders in each country denounce the colonial rule as unjust invasion while praising past nationalist leaders? fight against it as patriotic. They demand Japan?s current leaders to recognize (acknowledge) wrongdoings of Japan?s colonial rule, opposing any actions that imply Japanese leaders? support for or tolerance of the colonial rule. Through the analysis of the current controversies between the three countries, this paper develops a theoretical discussion of identity and recognition in international relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]