Seeking 'legitimate' great power status in post-cold war international society: China's and Japan's participation in UNPKO

International Relations

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 45-63

  Suzuki, Shogo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

China; English School; Great powers; Japan; Legitimacy; Recognition; Rising powers; Status

Indexed keywords

EID: 40649090944     PISSN: 00471178     EISSN: 17412862     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0047117807087242     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the British International Studies Association Conference at St Andrews in 2005, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and the Annual International Studies Association Conference at San Diego in 2006. I gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the British Academy (grant no. OCG-41879) and the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge, for allowing me to present my arguments at these forums. For their helpful comments, I am indebted to Ian Clark, Christopher W. Hughes, Hiro Katsumata, Amrita Narlikar, Iver B. Neumann, Joel Quirk, Ole Jacob Sending, J. C. Sharman, Stuart Harris, Tadokoro Masayuki, Ayse Zarakol, and the anonymous reviewers for International Relations.
2. Ronald Dore, Japan, Internationalism and the UN (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 98.
3. Steven I. Levine, 'Perception and Ideology in Chinese Foreign Policy', in Thomas W. Robinson and David Shambaugh (eds), Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 43. See also Rosemary Foot, 'Chinese Power and the Idea of a Responsible State', The China Journal, 45, 2001, p. 7.
4. Stuart Harris, 'The PRC's Quest for Great Power Status: A Long and Winding Road', Working Paper 1998/4 (Canberra: Department of International Relations, Australian National University, 1998), p. 2.
5. Barry Buzan, The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004).
6. Foot, 'Chinese Power and the Idea of a Responsible State', pp. 1-19, and Rosemary Foot, 'Chinese Strategies in a US-Hegemonic Global Order: Accommodating and Hedging', International Affairs, 82(1), 2006, p. 86.
7. Gerry Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 68. Emphasis in original.
8. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), p. 196. See also Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States, p. 68.
9. Bull, The Anarchical Society, p. 208, Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 30. Also see Tim Dunne, 'Society and Hierarchy in International Relations', International Relations, 17(3), p. 307.
10. Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States, p. 177.
11. See G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); Ian Clark, Legitimacy in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 96-9; and Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States, pp. 98-100, 175-9.
12. Hans J. Morgenthau has defined a 'status quo' state in terms of upholding the balance of power, while Robert Gilpin and Alastair Iain Johnston have included compliance with formal and informal rules of the international community as an additional criterion. It is the latter definition I adopt here. See Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf, 1973), pp. 40-4; Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, pp. 28-38; and Johnston, Is China a Status Quo Power?', International Security, 27(4), 2003, p. 11.
13. E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1961), especially pp. 102-32; Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1979).
14. Amrita Narlikar, 'All that Glitters Is Not Gold: India's Rise to Power', Third World Quarterly, 28(5), 2007, p. 986.
15. Narlikar, 'All that Glitters', p. 986.
16. Bull, The Anarchical Society, p. 194.
17. For this point see Bull, The Anarchical Society, p. 197; Buzan, The United States and the Great Powers, p. 62.
18. See Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, pp. 73-87; Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, pp. 109-10; Martin Wight, Power Politics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979), pp. 95-9.
19. Suzuki Hironao, 'OECD kamei no gaikô katei: "seiji keizai ittai" rosen to shite no jiyû jinei ni okeru gaikôteki chihei no kakudai', Kokusai seiji, 140, 2005, p. 60.
20. I draw here on Wynne Elizabeth Russell and define status as a 'social position' or 'rank' in relation to others. The measurement of status, as Russell argues, requires an 'Other', and 'is...a more inherently comparative concept than "prestige"'. Prestige, on the other hand, 'may be thought of as "influence or good reputation derived from past achievement or association"'. See Russell, 'Identity Diplomacy: A Study in Diplomatic Representation and the Ordering of International Society' (PhD dissertation, Australian National University, 2003), p. 159. Also see David Sylvan, Corinne Graff and Elisabetta Pugliese, 'Status and Prestige in International Relations' (paper presented at the Third Pan-European International Relations Conference and Joint Meeting with the International Studies Association, Vienna, 16-19 September 1998) and Richard Ned Lebow, 'Fear, Interest and Honour: Outlines of a Theory of International Relations', International Affairs, 82(3), 2006, pp. 431-48.
21. Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, 'Power in International Politics', International Organization, 59(1), 2005, pp. 51-5.
22. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, p. 74.
23. Russell, 'Identity Diplomacy', p. 167, fn. 59.
24. John M. Hobson and J. C. Sharman, 'The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change', European Journal of International Relations, 11(1), 2005, p. 87.
25. Erik Ringmar, 'The Recognition Game: Soviet Russia against the West', Cooperation and Conflict, 37(2), 2002, pp. 121-2.
26. Chris Brown, 'Do Great Powers Have Great Responsibilities? Great Powers and Moral Agency', Global Society, 18(1), 2004, p. 9.
27. Clark, Legitimacy in International Society, p. 156. See also Francis Fukuyama, 'The End of History?', The National Interest, 16, 1989, pp. 3-18; Justin Morris, 'Normative Innovation and the Great Powers', in Alex J. Bellamy (ed.), International Society and its Critics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 275; David P. Fidler, 'The Return of the Standard of Civilization', Chicago Journal of International Law, 2, 2001, pp. 137-57.
28. Christian Reus-Smit, 'Liberal Hierarchy and the Licence to Use Force', Review of International Studies, 31, 2005, p. 76.
29. Cf. Brown, 'Do Great Powers Have Great Responsibilities?', p. 12.
30. Ikenberry, After Victory.
31. Yongjin Zhang, 'Problematizing China's Security: Sociological Insights', Pacifica Review, 13(3), 2001, p. 252.
32. Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, 'The Coming Conflict with America', Foreign Affairs, 76(2), 1997, pp. 18-32; Denny Roy, 'Hegemon on the Horizon? China's Threat to East Asian Security', International Security, 19(1), 1994, pp. 149-68.
33. For the problems of classical realism in explaining Chinese reactions to the 'China Threat' theses, see Yong Deng, 'Reputation and the Security Dilemma: China Reacts to the China Threat Theory', in Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert Ross (eds), New Directions in the Study of China's Foreign Policy (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006), pp. 188-91. Also see Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, pp. 31-4.
34. Xing Shizhong '"Zhongguo weixie lun" keyi xiuyi', Qiushi, 3, 1996, p. 20.
35. Soeya Yoshihide, Nihon no 'midoru pawaa gaikô: Sengo nihon no sentaku to kôsô (Tokyo: Chikuma shobô, 2005), pp. 23-5.
36. Aurelia George, 'Japan's Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: Radical Departure or Predictable Response?', Asian Survey, 33(6), 1993, p. 565. Also see Katsumi Ishizuka, 'Japan's Policy towards UN Peacekeeping Operations', International Peacekeeping, 12(1), 2005, p. 71.
37. Aurelia George Mulgan, 'International Peacekeeping and Japan's Role: Catalyst or Cautionary Tale?', Asian Survey, 35(12), 1995, p. 1108.
38. Reinhard Drifte, Japan's Quest for a Permanent Security Council Seat: A Matter of Pride or Justice? (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).
39. Ôtake Hideo, Saigunbi to nashonarizumu: Sengo Nippon no bôei kan (Tokyo: Kôdansha, 2005), p. 89.
40. Christopher W. Hughes, 'Japan's Re-emergence as a "Normal" Military Power', Adelphi Paper 368-9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 51. Also see George, 'Japan's Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations', p. 565.
41. Courtney Purrington, 'Tokyo's Policy Responses during the Gulf War and the Impact of the "Iraqi Shock" on Japan', Pacific Affairs, 65(2), 1992, p. 168.
42. Ishizuka, 'Japan's Policy towards UN Peacekeeping Operations', p. 79.
43. Trevor Findlay, 'The New Peacekeepers and the New Peacekeeping', Working Paper 2 (Department of International Relations, Australian National University, 1996), p. 4.
44. Findlay, 'The New Peacekeepers and the New Peacekeeping', p. 5.
45. Mely Caballero-Anthony, 'Introduction: UN Peace Operations and Asian Security', International Peacekeeping, 12(1), 2005, pp. 4-5. The term 'peacebuilding' can be defined as 'action undertaken at the end of a civil conflict to consolidate peace and prevent a recurrence of fighting. A peacebuilding mission involves the deployment of military and civilian personnel from several international agencies, with a mandate to conduct peacebuilding in a country that is just emerging from a civil war.' See Roland Paris, At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 38.
46. Paris, At War's End, p. 41.
47. Paris, At War's End, p. 5.
48. Roland Paris, 'International Peacebuilding and the "Mission Civilisatrice"', Review of International Studies, 28(4), 2002, p. 638.
49. Interview, China Foundation for International Strategic Studies, Beijing, 23 April 2007.
50. Bates Gill and James Reilly, 'Sovereignty, Intervention and Peacekeeping: The View from Beijing', Survival, 42(3), 2000, p. 43.
51. Tang Yongsheng, 'Zhongguo yu lianheguo weihe huodong', Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi, 9, 2002, p. 39.
52. This information is compiled from United Nations, 'Monthly Summary of Contributors to UN Peacekeeping Operations', available at: www.un.org/ Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2006/june06_3.pdf and http://www.un.org/ Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/95-05.htm (accessed 7 July 2006).
53. Allen Carlson, 'Helping to Keep the Peace (Albeit Reluctantly): China's Recent Stance on Sovereignty and Multilateral Intervention', Pacific Affairs, 77(1), 2004, p. 24.
54. Carlson, 'Helping to Keep the Peace', p. 11. A similar point is made by Gill and Reilly, 'Sovereignty, Intervention and Peacekeeping', p. 53.
55. Interview, Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Relations, Beijing, 2007.
56. Interview, Chinese Institute of International Studies, Beijing, 2007. Emphasis added.
57. Zhang Huiyu, 'Zhongguo dui lianheguo weihe xingdong de gongxian' (Senior High School edition), Wujing xueyuan xuebao, 20(5), 2004, p. 32.
58. Tang, 'Zhongguo yu lianheguo weihe xingdong', p. 41. Emphasis added.
59. Interview, Chinese Institute of International Studies, Beijing, 23 April 2007.
60. George, 'Japan's Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations', pp. 574-5.
61. Suzuki Yukio, 'Keizai taikoku no risuku to sekinin', Chûô kôron, May 1991, p. 101. Similar arguments have been repeated by Satô Seizaburô, '"Sengo ishiki" no dasei o tatsu aki', Chûô kôron, November 1990, pp. 116, 118; Ozawa Ichirô, 'Beikoku nakushite nippon wa ikirarenai', Chûô kôron, June 1998, pp. 69-71.
62. Ozawa Ichirô, Nihon kaizô keikaku (Tokyo: Kôdansha, 2006), p. 114.
63. Glenn D. Hook, Militarization and Demilitarization in Contemporary Japan (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 86.
64. George, 'Japan's Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations', p. 566. While Ozawa uses the term 'regular player', it is widely accepted that such terms usually refer to the Western states.
65. Hugo Dobson, Japan and United Nations Peacekeeping: New Pressures, New Responses (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), p. 86. Also see Ozawa Ichirô, 'Nihonkoku kenpô kaisei shian', Bungei shunjû, September 1999, pp. 98-9.
66. Dobson, Japan and United Nations Peacekeeping, p. 41.
67. Peter J. Katzenstein, Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996).
68. Hook, Militarization and Demilitarization in Contemporary Japan, chapter 4, and George, 'Japan's Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations', p. 568. See also Kubota Manae, 'Ozawa-san, machigatte imasu', Sekai, 580, 1993, pp. 68-73; Yokota Kôichi, 'Rikken shugi ga kiki ni hinshiteiru', Sekai, 571, 1992, pp. 36-45.
69. Hook, Militarization and Demilitarization in Contemporary Japan, p. 87.
70. Clark, Legitimacy in International Society, p. 180.
71. See Hughes, 'Japan's Re-emergence as a "Normal" Military Power', p. 129.
72. Christopher Layne, 'The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise', International Security, 17(4), 1993, p. 51.
73. Gerald Segal, 'The Coming Confrontation between China and Japan?', World Policy Journal, 10(2), 1993, p. 28.
74. Cited in Thomas U. Berger, 'From Sword to Chrysanthemum: Japan's Culture of Anti-militarism', Inter-national Security, 17(4), 1993, p. 125.
75. Andrew Hurrell, 'Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-be Great Powers?', International Affairs, 82(1), 2006, pp. 1-19.
76. William Wohlforth, 'The Stability of a Unipolar World', International Security, 24(1), 1999, pp. 5-41.
77. Barnett and Duvall, 'Power in International Politics', pp. 49-52.