Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T16:43:07.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction to Special Issue: Japan as Studied in Japan's Neighbors and Japan Itself

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2010

TAKASHI INOGUCHI
TAKASHI INOGUCHI*
Affiliation:
President, University of Niigata Prefecture Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This special issue highlights one of the important subjects of this journal, Japanese politics and international relations, as studied in Japan's neighbors, Korea and China, and Japan itself. The aim is to elucidate the angles taken by these three countries when examining Japan. Before going into the similar and different angles taken, it may be helpful to note two noteworthy features of their interactions and transactions. They are, first, the steady integration of these economies and societies; second, the tenacity of ill-feelings held toward Japan. First, if the lifting in 1991 of the embargo imposed on China for its Tiananmen massacre of 1989 is a key benchmark for the steady and swift regional integration in East Asia since, it did not take a dozen years before the intra-regional trade ratio over total trade went beyond 50%. As compared to parallell figures for Europe at various time points, say 1962 when the Rome Treaty was signed and 1990 when the Maastricht Treaty was signed, the number of years necessary for intraregional trade over total trade to exceed 50% are a dozen years for East Asia versus thirty odd years for Western Europe. It has a lot to do with the pattern of inclusion in East Asian regional integration. It includes China and the United States. In Europe regional integration was meant to enable Western Europe to stand alone. Both vis-à-vis the United States and vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, Western Europe wanted to band together and bind together those with shared values. East Asian regional integration differs from this European model. The East Asian model is first to strengthen themselves, while seeking opportunities regionally and globally to attain, as a result of their self-strengthening strategy, high regional strength and high regional integration.

Type
Introduction
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 11 , Special Issue 3: Japan as Studied in Japan's Neighbors and Japan Itself , December 2010 , pp. 271 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The workshop which led to the special issue was organized by the University of Niigata Prefecture with financial assistance extended by the Japan Foundation. It was held on October 16, 2009 at the University of Niigata Prefecture.

2 As for the primarily ‘functional’ integration strategy adopted in East Asia, see Inoguchi, Takashi, ‘Europe to Asia no chiikiteki ketsugou (Regional Integration in Europe and Asia), Gakujutsu no doko (Science Council of Japan Forum), May 2009, pp. 10–13Google Scholar.

3 In the immediate post-Cold War years, the Asian values thrust was made by some Malasian and Singaporean leaders. As for the non-predominance of Asian values among Asian citizens. See Blondel, Jean and Inoguchi, Takashi, Political Cultures in Asia and Europe (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar.

4 As for the diversifying profile of East Asian regime types, see Mikami, Satoru and Inoguchi, Takashi, ‘Diagnosing the Micro Foundation of Democracy in Asia: Evidence from the AsiaBarometer Survey, 2003–2008’, in Chu, Yin-Wah and Wong, Siulong (eds.), East Asia's New Democracies (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 246–92Google Scholar.

5 As for the Japanese conceptions of the history issue, see Inoguchi, Takashi, ‘How to Assess World War II in World History: One Japanese Perspective’, in Koh, David (ed.), Legacies of World War II in South and East Asia (Singapore: ISEAS, 2007), pp. 138–51Google Scholar.

6 Akihiko, Tanaka, ‘Ajiashokoku niokeru kakukoku nitaisuru eikyouryoku no ninchi nituite, Kyoutsu seronchousa bunseki’ (On the Perception of Each Country's Impact among Asian Countries), Ajia Jihou, 37 (5) (2006): 20–45Google Scholar

As for the AsiaBarometer survey, see Inoguchi, Takashi, ‘The AsiaBarometer: Its Aim, Its Scope and Its Development’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 5 (1): 179–96Google Scholar; Inoguchi, Takashi and Fujii, Seiji, ‘The AsiaBarometer: Its Aim, Its Scope and Its Development’, in Moller, Valerie, Huschka, Denis, and Michalos, Alex C. (eds.), Barometers of Quality of Life Around the Globe (Springer, 2008), pp. 187–232Google Scholar.

7 Zarakol, Ayşe, ‘Ontological Security and State Denial of Historical Crime: Turkey and Japan’, International Relations, 24 (1) (2010): 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Note intermittent uneasiness is manifested in the controversies of whether the secular Republic Constitution accommodates the Islamic female head scarf for public figures in Turkey and whether Japanese public figures pay a visit to the Shintoist Yasukuni Shrine where some war-crime-tainted militaries and officials were burried along with millions of war deads.