助成Institute forInternational Policy Studies
・Tokyo・IIPS International Conference“Reidentifying Japan for the 21st Century”
Tokyo, October 27-28, 2004

“Japan’s Role in Providing International Public Goodsin the 21st Century: A Thai Perspective”
ByDr. Chookiat Panaspornprasit
Director
Institute of Security and International Studies
ThailandJapan’s Role in Providing International Public Goods in the 21st Century:
A Thai Perspective
Chookiat Panaspornprasit

Introduction
The world in the 21st century is now very uncertain and unpredictable in nature
not only for Japan, but also for other members of the whole international society as awhole. The existence of both old and new security paradigms compel, more often thannot, various actors, including Japan, to re-assess, re-formulate their national public andsecurity policies in order to deal effectively with various types of security challenges—
both traditional and non-traditional security issues. The combination of both security
agendas leads to a necessity of adopting the new security mindset and approach to better
understand the causes and consequences of these security challenges, evidenced by theemergence of new various security concepts; for example, comprehensive security,
human security, and cooperative security. All of these new security concepts are notmutually exclusive. They also share a common caveat—state is no longer the only
referent object in dealing with security agendas nowadays.
In addition, such development is now apparently emerging under the otherchanging international environment. The preponderant power of the US, the rising
influence both China and India, the declining role of the world body like the United
Nations (UN) cause major concern among policy makers in the Asia-Pacific region.
Leaders both in Tokyo and their counterparts in Southeast Asian countries deem astimely and necessary to re-evaluate how to “maintain”, “re-assert”, and even “increase”
Japan’s role in international affairs, especially in the provision of and contribution to themaximization of international public goods. By this term, it is meant to be, let me
propose, components or elements, both tangible and non-tangible, which “are directlyaimed to enhance international peace, security, stability, and mutual understanding
through non-violent approaches and mechanisms”. Therefore, under the newdevelopment of the new dawn of 21st century, Japan’s external roles, both at regional andinternational levels, are now under close watch with great enthusiasm.
Change and Continuity vs Challenges and Opportunities
The main components of Japan’s foreign policy formulation and implementation
nowadays are a mixture of both change and continuity. Both Japan’s declaratory andadministrative foreign policies reflect this in an incremental fashion. Various inputs,approaches, instruments of foreign policy implementation still remain the cornerstone ofJapan’s external affairs, but with different emphasis on these components from the past.
It is no exaggeration to argue also at this juncture that the priority list of Japan’s nationalinterest comprises both those old and new national interest issues, with differing focus on
the individual item on the list.
The old and new national interest issues are closely linked to both the existence ofsome traditional security issues, and the proliferation of various non-traditional security
issues in the present international system. The tension on the Korean Peninsula, theongoing confrontation between the two nuclear rivals on the sub-continent, and theCross-Strait relations still remain vital for Japan’s national strategic outlook calculation,11

albeit the fact that these conflicts will have either direct and indirect impact on its
national security equation. The North Korean crisis since October 2002, when thePyongyang government admitted that it has a nuclear enrichment programme, and thesubsequent stand-off between the neo-conservative government in Washington and theauthoritarian regime in Pyongyang have led to the political impasse and tension in theNorth Pacific region. A series of six-party talk, aimed at peacefully defusing the crisis on
the peninsula, still makes no major progress. Compared with the Chinese government’srole, one can argue that the Japanese government’s role seems to be relatively low.
Arguably posing the same level of threat perception among policy-makers in Japan is thetension between the Beijing government and the pro-independence ruling party in Taipei.
The Chinese government’s deployment of missiles in large number along the east coast
results in the decision of the elites in Taipei to procure more sophisticated weaponry fromthe US. The government in Beijing makes clear its firm position on “one China” policy,regarding the Cross-Strait tension as its own internal political issue. Any settlement on
this must be in favour of Beijing’s sole sovereignty, and total territorial integrity. ToJapan, these two crises, one to the very near west and the other in the not-far-away south,
pose very direct security threats.
Moreover, policy-makers in Japan these days cannot merely overlook the nexus
between these traditional security issues and the numerous non-traditional security issues
confronting the world community nowadays. A list of these non-traditional security
issues seems to be open-ended; for example, human and drug trafficking, hunger andpoverty, religious/ethnic/sectarian conflicts and violence, money laundering, small arms
proliferation, environment degradation, resource depletion, the proliferation of weaponsof mass destruction (WMD), maritime security, piracy, and most relevant to mostsecurity thinkers these days, terrorism (either bio-terrorism or cyber-terrorism). Not only
leaders in Japan but also their counterparts in other Southeast Asian capitals expect tocome up with long-term and effective solutions to these security issues. The horizontal
and vertical networks of both illegal human and illicit drug trafficking in the Asia-Pacificregion become so transnational in nature that effect members of societies at differentlevels. The most recent news report on cracking down the illegal women trafficking into
Japan serves as a legitimate reminder.
Cultural and religious aspects play more critical role than before in both conflictand cooperation in international affairs. Sectarian armed confrontations leading tomassive scale of bloodshed in various troubled spots in Southeast Asia confirm that thehome-grown elements of instability and insecurity warrant serious and well-balanced
attention and solutions. Also shared by both governments in Tokyo and other leaders in
the region is the rising significance of terrorists’ malicious and violent activities. Japan’s
own experience of dealing with the bio-terrorism in 1995 has helped in setting theunprecedented guidelines for pre-empting the bio-terrorism. The already “uncertain”
world becomes more very “unpredictable” due to the spate of terrorists’ violent attacks invarious parts of the world, including most parts of the Asia-Pacific region as well. Thereis no denying that the necessity of making better understanding among different cultures,values, civilizations becomes more acute than some decades ago.
A properunderstanding of the differences among “fundamentalism”, “radicalism”, “fanaticism”,
on the one hand, and “modernism”, “liberalism”, on the other, appears highly inevitable
under the current circumstances. Now coming to the security issues at sea which also can2

effect Japan’s economic growth, and prosperity, maritime security, for the Japanese
government, is one of the key security concerns for every single Japanese government.
The secure sea lanes of communication (SLOCs), both regionally and internationally,
have formed a major lifeline for Japan’s accumulated economic success and financial
wealth. Any unforeseen disruption to the SLOCs will cause, more often than not, adverse
consequences not only to Japan’s economic outlook, but also its closely-linked economic
interactions with other Asian countries, especially those in Southeast Asia.
Regarding the issue of environmental protection, the Kyoto Treaty, a historic
milestone in preserving one of the most significant public goods of mankind—
environment, is well-received by most members of international society. This can beconstrued as one of the most successful political and diplomatic achievements at themultilateral level by the Japanese government although some signatories to the Treaty
still delay ratifying it and putting into full implementation.
Rising Expectations vs Japan’s Contributing Role in Decline?
Together with the scenario described above, the unchallenged power of the US,
the rising influence and assertive role of both China and India in Southeast Asia could
lead to a question as to whether Japan’s ongoing role in providing public goods is indecline or being challenged, and surpassed. It is no exaggeration to claim that one mightprobably expect Japan to play more leading role in providing public goods in various
fields, both at the regional and international levels. Functional contribution by theJapanese government through its various “modes of action” could ensure mutual
goodwill, mutual confidence, and long-term prosperity. The foreign direct investment(FDI) scheme, the overseas development assistance (ODA), of course, will become moreeffective by being complementary with other functional modes of action. Cultural
exchange, and humanitarian assistance programmes are also a case in point. What shouldbe emphasized at this juncture is that the actors involved with providing international
public goods are not necessarily represented by government officials or agencies. Private
sectors, especially the non-governmental organization (NGOs), or the philanthropist
bodies, can assert more leading role as well.
In sum, the less pro-active foreign policy of Japan could be less well-received byits counterparts in Southeast Asia. For example, expectations of the Japanese assistancein bringing an end to the sectarian conflicts in Aceh, and in the South of the Philippines
still prevail.2
At issue nowadays is the question as to whether and when the United Nations(UN) reform will become feasible. It is now attracting serious discussion and attention of
not only the Japanese government, but also other members of the whole internationalsystem. The UN Secretary-General (UNSG) has commissioned a 16-member panel tomake an in-depth study into how to make the major reform of this world body.
Speculations are ripe to the extent that Japan and Germany should also be part of themain decision-making body of this world organization. With its major national attributesand contribution, one could claim that the Japanese government should be able to solicit
strong political and diplomatic support of their counterparts in the Asia-Pacific region,
including those in Southeast Asia.

3Conclusion
Currently, it is possible to conclude at this stage that Japan is the inevitable key
actor in international affairs in the Asia-Pacific region. An “window of opportunity” forthe Tokyo government to play more “constructive” and “significant” role at the global
level should receive not only a well-balanced support, but also consistent encouragement.
In addition, it is also essential to point out that not only the Japanese government, but also
the Japanese private sectors in various fields can come into interplay with their respective
counterparts in other societies.
Endnotes
1

Kenneth J. Haller, ed., Japanese International Responsibility and Contribution to Peace and Prosperity in
the Asia-Pacific Region (Bangkok: Japanese Studies Center, Institute of East Asian Studies, Thammasat
Univeristy, 1995).
2Mohammed Jawhar bin Hassan, “ASEAN’s Political and Security Relations with Japan, in ASEANJapan Cooperation: A Foundation for East Asian Community (Tokyo: Japan Center for International
Exchange), p. 153.

4