Introduction: Japan and the Reform of the Liberal International Order

Abstract

Facing the rise of authoritarian states—namely Russian and China—the liberal international order has arguably declined and retreated during the last decade. The United Nations adopted a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion in Ukraine on March 2, 2022, but forty nations either voted against or abstained. Countries labelled as global swinging states or the global south criticize the liberal international order of being dominated by Western civilization. The following chapters of this book aim to find possible shared perceptions and junctures between Japan, Europe, the United States and Indo-Pacific countries, which could reform the liberal international order, giving it a more global outlook and a better reach.

The Decline of the Liberal International Order

In the last decade, the decline of the liberal international order has been continuously debated. Many point out that the liberal international order, as we know it, has retreated, particularly with the rise of authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia.

A sense of crisis was enhanced when Donald Trump was elected as the new American president in November 2017. Professor John Ikenberry of Princeton University argued that: “For the first time since the 1930s, the United States has elected a president who is actively hostile to liberal internationalism.”¹ In addition to this, Ikenberry also argued that: “Britain’s decision to leave the EU, and a myriad other troubles besetting Europe, appear to mark an end to the long postwar project of building a greater union.”² Thus, we needed to ask whether we would be able to defend the existence of the resilient liberal international order even before Russia began its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The decline of the liberal international order was not simply caused by the ideology and the actions of a new American president who often expressed criticism towards liberal internationalism. A much deeper problem lies in the decline of American power and influence in the international community. Thus, there are several reasons why the problem of the decline of American influence has been debated by various influential thinkers.

First, the failure of American attempts to expand democracy both in Afghanistan and in Iraq has nurtured an impression of limitations to the power projection of the U.S. The spread of the Islamic State in Iraq and in Syria, as well as the reluctance of the U.S. government to engage in the region, has illuminated uncertainty for the future of the liberal international order. With the retreat of American forces in the region, the reputation and the authority of the U.S. in the international community has been seriously damaged. It was not so difficult for China and Russia to fill the vacuum that the retreat of American forces left in the region. Russian unilateral annexation of Crimea in 2014 is one example of how the authoritarian powers began to expand their influence around them.

It is broadly perceived that the age of great power competition began with the decline of the liberal international order in the late 2010s. Given this view, it is more important than ever to observe how China and Russia expand their influence in each region in the world today.

Second, the rise of the so-called Global South has been transforming the norms and values of the international order that the West had consolidated in the last few centuries. The two most populous powers, India and China, have repeatedly criticized how Western Civilization has dominated the international order while their own values are not seriously taken into consideration. In short, it is repeatedly argued that the international order today must be more globalized now than in previous centuries when the West was able to dominate.

Even though the decline or the crisis of the liberal international order has been thoroughly debated by many commentators, it is now necessary to link it with the rise of the Global South and also the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has seriously been undermining the liberal international order as we have known it. In this volume, we have assembled valuable arguments on the limitations of the liberal international order in a time of crisis.

Japan and Europe Defend the Liberal International Order

Having faced the abdication of global leadership by President Trump who favored “America First” policies, Ikenberry emphasizes the importance of the role of other leading liberal democracies such as Japan and Germany. He wrote in his article in Foreign Affairs that:

If the liberal international order is to survive, leaders and constituencies around the world that still support it will need to step up. Much will rest on the shoulders of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the only two leaders of consequence left standing who support it.³

Around this time, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began to promote an important new diplomatic initiative, called “the free and open Indo-Pacific” vision. As the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese political history, Prime Minister Abe could enjoy a strong political foundation where he could present important diplomatic initiatives that previous prime ministers could not during their short terms in office.

Thus, Jeffrey Hornung of Rand Corporation wrote that, “Under the current prime minister, Shinzo Abe, Japan’s role in supporting the international order has been particularly notable.”⁴ Hornung also argued that: “It was part of his broader Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy, which the Trump administration later endorsed and which places more of the burden on Japan for protecting freedom, the rule of law, and market economies in the region.”⁵

At the opening session of the Sixth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD VI) on August 27, 2016, Prime Minister Abe proposed to link the two oceans, the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, by promoting both the rule of law and the connectivity in and among sub-regions there.⁶ He then advocated to further accelerate the economic growth of the Indo-Pacific region. While the U.S. government under President Trump began to present a more confrontational approach to China around this time, Japan defended an alternative vision both to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and to the Trumpian inward-looking MAGA (Make American Great Again) approach. As Japan’s approach is both broader and more inclusive in its regional order vision, Japan’s free and open Indo-Pacific vision has been embraced by leading powers in Asia and in Europe.⁷

By proposing a broader vision in the Indo-Pacific region, Japan has been regarded as a leading defender of the liberal international order. Thus, Yoichi Funabashi and John Ikenberry wrote that “it is unsurprising that the world is turning to Japan to shoulder greater responsibility in shaping the liberal international order.”⁸ According to Funabashi and Ikenberry, “Japan has begun taking on this mantle as the primary driver of the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) negotiations after the U.S. withdrawal, and through signing an Economic Partnership Agreement with the EU.” Japan has been playing a crucial role as “Japan would suffer the greatest strategic losses” with the decline of the postwar liberal international order, as Funabashi and Ikenberry have argued.⁹

It should be noted that, with Japan’s role as such, the Indo-Pacific region has become the center of global politics in recent years. At the same time, the U.S. and China are not just struggling to expand their power and interests in the region; they are also struggling to present a more attractive vision of the regional order. Japan and the U.S. have been working together to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific. Even though the emphasis and rhetoric are different, the Trump administration also published its own version of Indo-Pacific strategy on June 1, 2019—two years later than Japan began this diplomatic initiative.¹⁰

On 17 July 2018, Japan and the European Union signed the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) together with the Strategic Partnership Agreement in Tokyo. Although there existed several sensitive issues between the two sides, the EU showed its strong energy to conclude and also to ratify these agreements at the time when the American president repeatedly criticized its own allies across the Atlantic Ocean. It was generally perceived that the EU needed its closer cooperation with Japan in order to defend the rules-based international order that was under attack.

Thus, leading European countries, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands published their own versions of the Indo-Pacific strategy between 2019 and 2020. The EU itself also published its Indo-Pacific strategy entitled, “The EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific” on 16 September 2021.¹¹ It became clearer that Japan and Europe were willing to take on more leading role, as proposed by Ikenberry, when Donald Trump came into the presidential office.

Between the West and the Rest

However, it should be questioned whether the liberal international order that the West had documented mainly after 1945 could be appropriately embraced by the “Rest.” Thus, Hans Kundnani argues that “these documents based on liberal principles were signed only by Western powers” and: “There was no document that laid out the basis for a specifically liberal international order that was agreed on by all the world’s powers.”¹² Kundnani rightly argued that “it is not only in authoritarian states such as China and Russia that the liberal international order, and American ‘hegemony’, is perceived differently than in the West.”¹³

In this way, the liberal international order must be truly globalized with a broader and stronger foundation. However, with the General Assembly of the United Nations “Adopts Resolution Demanding Russian Federation Immediately End Illegal Use of Force in Ukraine, Withdraw All Troops” on 2 March 2022, 40 nations either abstained or were opposed to the sanction against Russia.¹⁴ This result showed that even the most vital norms of the liberal international order are not so easily shared by all member states of the United Nations. There exists a gap between the West and the authoritarian states, thus Daniel M. Kliman and Richard Fontaine aptly labelled some states as “Global Swing States” a decade ago before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.¹⁵

Reforming the Liberal International Order

In this volume, we will examine how the current liberal international order is perceived in each country in Asia and in Europe. Unlike the U.S. and China, Japan alone does not have sufficient resources to maintain and enhance the liberal international order. At the same time, we need to face the more existential problem of how to define the liberal international order. On this issue, it is necessary to remember that the liberal international order needs to be reformed with a more global outlook. Japan is a kind of a “frontline state” and the U.S.-China structural confrontation has been defining the future of the international order. Thus, we need to ask how the liberal international order will be affected by these recent trends in global politics.

Even though the U.S. remains at the center of global politics, we should not overlook the role of other powers in Asia, Europe and beyond, in defending, and also in reforming, the existing liberal international order. I hope that this volume will contribute to addressing these discussions.