Practitioner s view on the development of theories and practices of international relations in Europe and East Asia:

Transcription

1 Practitioner s view on the development of theories and practices of international relations in Europe and East Asia: Using the auxiliary perspective of the evolving theories of the just war and the post just war paradigm H.E. Mr. Kazuo Kodama Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Japan to the EU 26 April 2017 Professor Jan Melissen, Professor Elena Atanassova-Cornelis, Distinguished Students of the University of Antwerp, Good afternoon, Before I begin, I would like to remind you that the views expressed in this speech are my own and should not be construed as indicating the official position of the Government of Japan. I am delighted to be here as a guest lecturer and to present to you this lecture entitled A practitioner s view on the development of the theories and practices of international relations in Europe and East Asia by using the auxiliary perspective of the evolving theories of the just war and the post-just war paradigm. To begin with, let me introduce myself and my diplomatic career. I am married and a father to two children, both of whom are grownups: my son is a diplomat specializing in Russia and my daughter is a career woman working for a Japanese energy-related corporation. So you see that my wife and I are empty nesters. We have no more financial obligation to look after our kids. I feel truly liberated by this sensation. 1

2 (My diplomatic career history as an introduction) I joined the Japanese Foreign Service in I suppose none of you were born then. Since then, I have spent nearly half my career in Tokyo and the other half outside Japan: My very first overseas posting was in England where I read my second BA in PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford University. Before coming up to Oxford, I attended a summer course on modern English history at Cambridge University. I remember vividly My professor explaining the British political character by writing on the blackboard the famous quote Fog in the Channel, isolated the Continent. I have no doubt that this sentiment has doggedly endured in UK politics ever since, culminating in the decision by the British people to leave the EU on June 23rd I never dreamt that I would become Japanese Ambassador to the EU and that my job would be to follow the BREXIT process with my own eyes! I have one more unforgettable memory from my Oxford days: One of my examination papers posed the following question on Japan: Discuss the following statement: Japan is an economic giant but a political dwarf. This was a widely-held perception at the end of 1980 s by the rest of the world. While I do not like referring to Japan as a political dwarf, there was a reason for it which I will explain later when I discuss the post-wwii transformation of Japan. After Oxford, I had many further postings throughout my career: Abu Dhabi, London, Hong Kong, Washington, D.C., New Delhi, Los Angeles, New York (as Japan s DPR to the United Nations), Paris (as Japan s PR to the OECD) and most recently here in Brussels. (Why the evolving theories of the just war and the post-just war paradigm are relevant to understanding the post-wwii development of international relations) Now, let me start by explaining to you why I think the evolving 2

3 theories of the just war and the post-just war paradigm are so relevant and important for us to understand the post-wwii development of international relations. Simply put, just war theory in my view attaches greater importance to righteousness over peace. The genealogy of the Just War theory is very long and its origins can be traced back to the epic Mahabharta around 400BC. If there is a just cause of war, bellum justum, war must be fought. In 1999, the Associated Press conducted an opinion survey among its member news-agencies all over the world asking them what they thought was the world s top news story of the 20 th century. They chose the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In second place came the Russian Revolution of 1917, in third place came Nazi Germany s invasion of Poland, in fourth came Neil Armstrong s walk on the Moon, in fifth came the collapse of the Berlin Wall. My contention here is that while the theory of the just war flourished in the Medieval age because of the Christian Crusades against the Islamic world and later subsided after the beginning of the Westphalian Peace in 1648, interest in the just war theory was greatly revived during and after WWII: In the 20 th century alone, humanity has gone through the existential agony of the dilemma between two contrary moral positions, namely, Is it right to be concerned only with one s duty to promote a just cause and be indifferent to the misery and the slaughter? The problem with the just war doctrine in the case of the Crusades against the non-christian world was that the doctrine presupposed the relationship between allies and enemies alone, therefore, the doctrine was neither applicable nor useful to address the problem of maintaining peace and stability inside Christian Europe. 3

4 Hugo Grotius s contribution to the Westphalian Peace is that he replaced the just war doctrine with his idea of international law based on natural law which laid down the foundation of the Westphalian Treaty. In a nutshell, the Westphalian system marked the emergence of a system of sovereign nation states. Now that a sovereign nation-state is the highest authority in the terrestrial world, all the sovereign nation states are equal, therefore the plurality of justice must be, ipso facto admitted. This is the essence of the Westphalian system. In other words, the system of post-just war was born in which the balance of power diplomacy and the admission of the role of war were considered as legitimate means to prevent a member of the system from having an ambition to become a bigger power. Since the Westphalian peace in 1648 to the breakout of WWII, European diplomacy in war and peace had been conducted on this Westphalian model. The first phase of the system was from the Westphalian treaty in 1648 to the end of the 18th century. Because nationalism had not yet permeated Europe, the system worked fairly well (As Europe later learned at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI, self-determination could become the just cause for which to wage a war against imperial powers in Europe). The second phase was from the Napoleonic Wars to WWI. The Congress of Vienna from reaffirmed the effectiveness of the balance of power based on the peace system created by the pentarchy of Austria, Britain, France, Prussia, and Russia. Indeed, Europe enjoyed peace for 44 years from the Franco-Prussian war to WWI. The third phase was between WWI and WWII. The League of Nations was founded in 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended WWI. Its primary goal was to maintain peace by preventing wars through collective security and not depending on the balance of power which had failed to prevent 4

5 WWI. The diplomatic ambition and philosophy behind the League of Nations was to strengthen the post just war system which presupposes that there is no just war or unjust war, war is something which must be prevented. Yet the League had no other option but to depend on the de facto power of the major states to enforce its resolutions. In the face of worsening rivalries between those de facto powers, the League s effectiveness to enforce collective security was crippled. Also, the League was doomed to fail from the beginning because the US, the biggest power after WWI was not a member. On the other hand, the defeated Germany was kept out of the League until 1926 and withdrew in 1933, as did Japan, Italy, and Spain. The League ultimately proved incapable of preventing the cataclysmic WWII from happening. (The UN: a system based on enhanced collective security) In order not to repeat the mistakes which led to WWII, all the major Allied powers including the US, UK, Soviet Union and the Republic of China started to build international organizations to maintain international peace and security, even before the surrender of Germany, at Dumbarton Oakes from August 21 to October 7,1944. Such efforts bore fruit at the United Nations Conference held at San Francisco in April-June 1945, where the UN Charter was adopted and the UN was established. In my view, the UN has adopted an enhanced collective security to maintain peace and stability in the world. The principle of the sovereign equality of its members (UN Charter Article 2.1) is one of the cardinal principles of the UN and yet this is nothing new as we have seen in the Westphalian System. The second principle is something new in the sense that the members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council (UN Charter article 25). The UN Security Council is the heart of our global collective security system. 5

6 The Security Council is given complete authority to determine the crisis situation, recommend provisional measures to solve it, duly take note of failures to comply and then to decide what instruments to employ in enforcing its decisions. Throughout the entire history of the UN, this collective security system has worked well whenever the 5 permanent members of the Security Council have been in agreement, but when there has been disagreement, the UN has been powerless as was the case with the unfolding disaster in Syria. Do we consider that if UN adopts the collective security system, is there no space where the just war theory can play some meaningful role at the UN? First, the UN has been most instrumental in shaping the process of decolonization and has considered the fight against the colonial powers for independence and later the process of the dissolution of the Cold War system against communist totalitarianism both to be just causes. And then in 2005, world leaders gathered in New York to attend the UN Summit where they adopted the epoch-making principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The R2P is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocities, crimes and human rights violations. And if a sovereign member country of the UN fails to protect its people, then the international community through the UN is obliged to intervene without getting the authorization of the government in question in order to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity. The R2P does place those values above the values of maintaining peace for the sake of peace. President Theodore D. Roosevelt once remarked in the early 20 th century that If given the choice between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness. TDR s personal conviction has now become the norm of the UN. 6

7 On 17 March, 2011, the UNSC adopted the resolution (UNSC 2011/1973) in order to protect civilians inside Libya. The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians. (East Asian volatile situations right after WWII) In the late 1940 s, when the UN was only a few year old, the geopolitical situation in East Asia was most volatile. A huge power vacuum was created by the defeat and surrender of Japan in the Korean peninsula and in China. All out civil war between Mao Tse-Tung s Chinese Communist Party and Chiang Kai-shek s Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) broke out in October, Mao s people s army expelled Chiang Kai-shek and his Chinese Nationalist party to Taiwan and on 1 Ooctober,1949 the People s Republic of China was established. In Korea, following the surrender of Japan, the 38 th parallel became a dividing line between the North, occupied by the Soviet Union leading to the establishment of the Democratic People s Republic of Korea (DPRK) on 9 September, 1948 and the South by the US leading to the establishment of the Republic of Korea on 13 August, The Cold war between the US and the Soviet Union cast a long shadow over East Asia. On 25 June, 1950 the Korean War broke out with the invasion of the ROK by the North Korean Army. Due to the fortunate absence of the Soviet representative at the UNSC, UNSC resolution 84 was adopted on 7 July, The UN was fully involved in the Korean War, yet UN forces were obliged to fight a very difficult war against two belligerents who were both non-members of the UN (PRC and DPRK) while one permanent member of the Security Council, the Soviet Union, was militarily supporting 7

8 both the DPRK and the PRC. In the end, military stalemate led to a ceasefire in The two Koreas have remained divided to this day. The PRC joined the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council in October, 1971 after the Republic of China was ousted by the UN. (Japan s transformation after WWII) Now, I would like to discuss the defeat of Japan in the Pacific War and the post-war transformation of Japan. By so doing, I hope to show you that Japan has truly transformed herself into a nation of vibrant liberal democracy, rule of law, human rights and into a peace-loving nation. Looking back from the horizon of the second decade of the 21 st century, what do you think is the essential meaning of WWII? I for one argue that it was a devastating all-out war for almost all sovereign states in the world in which Germany, Japan and Italy chose and stood on the wrong side of history. As a Japanese diplomat, it pains me to admit that the Axis Powers fought on the side of fascism and totalitarianism against the forces of liberalism, which defended individual dignity, freedom and the idea that people are born free and equal. Japan entered a war with the US in 1941 and was defeated in Japan was literally reduced to ashes. Being under the occupation of the allied powers, Japan started to rebuild its shattered nation from scratch with generous assistance from the US, just as West European nations were generously assisted by the US through the Marshal Plan. The soul searching of the entire nation and the people of Japan right after the War produced a remarkable set of major elements, by the adoption of the new Constitution, which have firmly shaped post-war Japan right up to the present day. 8

9 First, the most significant change from pre-war Japan to post-war Japan is the proclamation of the new Constitution in Article 1 stipulates that sovereign power resides with the people of Japan and that the Emperor is the symbol of the state and the unity of the people. The Constitution also gives firm guarantees of fundamental human rights (Article 11) and equality under the law (Article 14). Second, Japan has made a very conscious decision in the area of its own security in the post-wwii era. Article 9 of the Constitution states that the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. Now, you see how revolutionary or idealistic it was for a sovereign nation state to renounce war as a sovereign right and not to recognize the right of belligerency. It is no exaggeration to describe the Constitution as staunchly pacifist and post-modern and I may add that post-just war ideology contributed to the formulation of Article 9. But in reality, how can Japan protect herself in the face of foreign aggression against Japanese territory without credible deterrence? The answer lies in Japan s security treaty with the US. Under our pacifist constitution, the GOJ has sought a military alliance with the US, in which the US is a pike and Japan is a shield. The GOJ interpreted Article 9 of the Constitution in such a manner that Japan can only maintain an exclusively defensive posture and not become a military power that presents a threat to other nations. In 1951 when Japan regained independence, the Japan-US security treaty was concluded. Article 5 of the Treaty states that Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party 9

10 in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Fast forward to 15 August 1995: Commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the end of WWII, the GOJ expressed its view on WWII in the most unequivocal manner in the form of the statement of the Prime Minister Murayama. The PM acknowledged in a spirit of humility the historical fact that Japan, following a misguided national policy, advanced along the road to war, and through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations, and expressed his deep remorse and heartfelt apology for this fact. This is, in my view, a solemn testament of the Japanese people that Japan will always strive to stand on the right side of history. (On China) Now on China, let me start with a quote from On China by Dr. Henry Kissinger. He said Foreign policy must define means as well as objectives, and if the means employed grow beyond the tolerance of the international framework, or of a relationship considered essential for national security, a choice must be made. He insists that choice cannot be fudged. He went on to say, the best outcome would be to combine the two approaches: for the idealists to recognize that principles need to be implemented over time and hence must be occasionally adjusted to circumstances; and for the realists to accept that values have their own reality and must be built into operational policies. Here again, I see a moral dilemma between just war theory and post-just war theory. I wonder how Dr. Kissinger applies those two approaches to the US relationship with China? He argues that sovereignty is considered paramount and any attempt from outside to 10

11 challenge China s communist party dictatorship is likely to invoke vast unintended consequences. He also maintains that the cause of peace is also a moral pursuit. What do you think? It seems to me that Dr. Kissinger is still a proponent of the realist view that the stability and the cause of peace in the world is more important than anything else. Does this mean the US foreign policy objective of promoting freedom and democracy must be compromised in the case of China? Whether you agree with Dr. Kissinger or not, the real world is always confronted with such difficult choices. It is true that China s socio-economic development for the last twenty five years has been truly remarkable. Yet, 63 years since the establishment of the People s Republic of China, it must be admitted that China is confronted with challenges such as government corruption, environmental degradation, the gap between rich and poor and, most seriously, questions about the very legitimacy of communist party rule in China. We know that in China the Communist Party directs its members not to discuss universal values, freedom of the press, civil society, economic liberalism, western constitutional democracy and questions concerning the nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. How should the rest of the world engage China? Simply put, Japan and the EU do not share fundamental values with China. On 17 April, Ms. Mogherini remarked in Beijing that the EU and China share the view of a global order based on multilateralism and on the UN system. She was very careful not to use any words which resonate well with fundamental values which China does not accept. 11

12 Japan and China agree to conduct their bilateral relationship by promoting a mutually beneficial bilateral relationship based on shared strategic interests. In the area of external policy of China to date, we are concerned about China s self-assertive maritime policies in both the East and South China Seas. In the case of the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China, on 12 July, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources in the South China Sea. It was a clear and unanimous judgement upholding the rule of law and the rights claimed by the Philippines. Yet China s response to the ruling was nothing but a sheer illogical outburst of anger against the ruling. While completely neglecting the verdict, China has almost finished the militarization of its outposts, unilaterally changing the status quo in the South China Sea. China s defense budget has increased by more than 10% per year for the last 28 years. Combining its military power with its status as the world number two economic power, China seems to be determined to pursue its dream of regaining the glory and power which the Middle Kingdom once enjoyed before the encroachment of the western powers into China since the 18 th century. In the eyes of the Chinese leaders and military generals, there exists only one super power with which they can do business. What China wants to establish is the so-called new relationship of great powers between China and the US. There is no other way for China and the rest of the world but to engage with each other. When Ms. Mogherini says that it is essential that Europe and China continue to make the case for a fair and open international system and that we must demonstrate with real action that we stand on the side of cooperation, engagement and of strong and just global rules, I cannot agree with her more. (On Russo- Japan relations) 12

13 Now let me say a few words about the Russo-Japanese relationship. The first thing to note is the fact that between Japan and Russia, WWII is not legally over because the Peace Treaty between the two countries has not been concluded. Before Japan started a war against the Allied Powers in December, 1941, Japan and Soviet Union signed the neutrality treaty on 13 April 1941 in which the two agreed to mutual non-aggression. In April, 1945, exactly one year before the expiration of the treaty, the Soviet Union unilaterally announced its intention not to extend the treaty beyond the termination of its 5 year full term in April Behind this move existed the secret agreement between the US President Roosevelt, the leader of the Soviet Union Stalin and the British Prime Minister Churchill at Yalta in February, 1945 in which Stalin agreed to start a war against Japan in exchange for US and UK support of Soviet territorial claims against Japan. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on 8 August, 1945 invading Manchuria, the Korean Peninsula, South Sakhalin Island and the Chishima (Kuril) Islands. On 14 August, 1945, the GOJ accepted the Potsdam Proclamation which defined the terms for Japanese surrender. But the Soviet forces continued their aggression against Japan and from 28 August to 5 September, the Red Army continued their advance to the Japanese four islands (Northern territories) and have occupied the islands to this day. These are the salient historical facts regarding the Northern Islands of Japan. Russia claims that the occupation and subsequent effective control of the four islands is the result of WWII and has a legal foundation. In response, the GOJ 13

14 maintains that the four islands have never been owned by Russia or the Soviet Union and they are integral territory of Japan historically as well as in accordance with the international law. Because of this dispute, we have been unable to sign the peace treaty even seventy years after the end of WWII. Prime Minster Abe is determined to resolve this issue and move on to conclude the peace treaty with Russia once and for all through his direct engagement with President Putin and it is my job to keep the European Union posted on this issue. This is the issue pertaining to law and justice between Japan and Russia. Therefore, we have no intention to relax sanctions against Russia in relation to the Ukraine crisis. (On North Korea) If you visit Panmunjeon at the 38 th parallel, you are reminded vividly that the Cold War has not ended at all between ROK and North Korea. Furthermore, North Korea under Kim Jon Un has been relentlessly strengthening its military capabilities including nuclear and ballistic missile development, posing a real threat to security and peace in the region. The DPRK withdrew from the NPT in The six party talks started to address the issues of denuclearization as well as the peace and the stability of the Korean Peninsula. Yet after 14 years, the six parties could not succeed in stopping North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons or from developing ballistic missiles Sensing the worsening security environment in the East Asia region, President Trump has made North Korea his top foreign policy priority, which Prime Minister Abe whole-heartedly welcomes and supports. Right now, the Trumpian diplomacy seems to be working in obliging China to cooperate more seriously with the US on the DPRK. President Trump s message to President Xi on the DPRK is very clear and forceful in that all the options are on the table and he would take unilateral action if the 14

15 Chinese did not put more pressure on North Korea to rein in its nuclear and missile development programs. Apparently his tough message to China seems to have been working. After the Sino-US summit in early April, China s influential newspaper, the Global Times said China was losing patience with Pyongyang and could consider cutting off oil exports if the North made another provocative move this month. Sino-Japanese cooperation can only play the role of second fiddle. The first violin must be played together by the US and China. For Japan, the challenge of the DPRK s nuclear and missile development is serious enough but we have another serious issue with the DPRK, namely, the issue of abductions. The abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea (DPRK) is a matter of grave concern for Japan and for the lives and safety of the Japanese people. From around 1970 to 1980, there were a string of incidents involving the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea. The Government of Japan (GOJ) has currently identified 17 Japanese citizens that have been abducted by the DPRK. In September 2002, the DPRK acknowledged that Japanese citizens had been abducted, and five abductees were returned to Japan in October of that year. The DPRK has not, however, offered adequate explanations for the fate of the rest of the Japanese abductees. The DPRK insists that the abduction issue has been resolved. The DPRK position, however, leaves many questions unanswered, and the GOJ considers it to be unacceptable. The reason why the GOJ has been raising this issue at the UN and seeking understanding and support for the resolution of the abduction issue from civilized nations in the world, including the European Union, is that the abductions, as well as other violations of human rights by the DPRK, constitute crimes 15

16 against humanity as condemned by the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) in its report on the DPRK in February Japan and the EU, as close partners sharing common values such as democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, have worked together to tackle this issue of international concern by co-sponsoring resolutions on the Situation of Human Rights in the DPRKP in the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council since Japan very much values the EU s unwavering commitment to mobilizing the UN Member States and the international community in order to redress all the DPRK s human rights violation-related issues, including the abductions (UNGA resolution 71/202 para. 3. reads that the General Assembly underscores its very serious concern at the systemic abduction, denial of repatriation and subsequent enforced disappearance of persons, including those from other countries ). (Conclusion) Let me sum up what I wanted you to think about. First, the future course of international politics will be determined more than ever by the UN member states based on their leaders calculations on three major determinants of the international politics, namely, power, national interest and values. Second, at the same time, we have to admit that the extent to which UN member states take into account values is likely to be very divergent. If the UN continues to struggle with different definitions of values, the UN Security Council cannot function well. Still, I am cautiously optimistic with the knowledge of the agreement on the concept of the R2P at the UN and we have to continue our tireless efforts to find a solution to the conflict between the realist position of attaching the utmost importance to the stability of the international order and the idealist position 16

17 that the just war must be permitted to right the wrong. Third, on the other hand, I hope you have now understood that in East Asia, even in the second decade of the 21 st century, the region is struggling with the heavy legacy of WWII and the Cold War. To put it differently, the relative weight of values assigned vis-a-vis military power or national interest in East Asia is smaller than is the case in Europe especially within the EU. The geopolitics trumps the consideration of values in the East Asian region. Finally, Japan is surrounded by sea on all sides, but more seriously, we are surrounded by nations which do not share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights which are universal values. They are rather brimming with a sense of self-assertive nationalism. There is no other way but to engage with each other. In order to do so, Japan needs the understanding and support of the EU for such an endeavor. I thank you for your attention. (End) (References) 1. Yasusuke Murakami, An Anticlassical Political-Economic Analysis (Stanford University Press,1997) 2. Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005) 3. Paul Kennedy, The Parliament of Man (Random House, 2006) 4. Henry Kissinger, On China (The Penguin Press, 2011) 5. Francis Fukuyama, Political Order and Political Decay (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014) 17