Week 3 - Alaina Cagalingan

After being defeated in war, like France, Japan reconstructed and rebuilt its nation through drastic changes in reforms, which aimed for better economy and structural power.  In fact, Japan’s successful economic recovery post World war was greatly influenced by the strategic goals of the Yoshida doctrine, which heavily emphasized on Japan’s economic recovery/growth and also its minimal defense after the war ( p.119). However, the success of Yoshida doctrine showed signs of fallibility. In the article “Japan’s Grand Strategic Shift from Yoshida to Koizumi Reflections on Japan’s Strategic Focus on the 21^st Century,” author Tam Siew Man argues that the doctrine became ‘unsuited for contemporary times’ (p.118). And so, Japan took drastic measures and shifted to the tenets of the Koizumi doctrine, which is one of the key catalysts to understanding how Japan remained an economic behemoth today.

            While the Yoshida doctrine disembodied economic recovery and minimal defense, Koizumi doctrine, on the other hand, emphasized on Japan's structural power, national tranquility, and economic edge against its neighbors (Tam, p.126). Koizumi’s three strategic goals moves Japan away from being a country that only feeds to the world. But rather, it wanted itself to be known as an independent and prosperous country rich in culture, economic resources, and military resources and at the same time remain peace with its neighbors. The shift to Koizumi doctrine mirrors Japan’s culture: its strive for excellence and recognition. 

            In order to implement the principles of Koizumi doctrine and act as Japan’s national aesthetic, certain industries must cooperate to engage in its success. For structural power, Japan had to change its status of ‘invisibility’ on the international stage.  The country increased its international leadership in various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to ‘anchor Japan within the inner circle of global decision. In addition to this, japan maintained its economic edge by reinforcing the model of ‘flying geese’ (Tam, p.131)  Japanese firms controlled the outflow of technology and industrial expertise to promote the divide between Japan and its neighbors. Japan’s headstrong economic leadership and edge, stated by 1^st and 2^nd goals of Koizumi doctrine, respectively, are becoming renowned across the globe. Koizumi’s 2^nd goal, which is preserving national tranquility, allowed for other countries to accept Japan’s rise as an economic asset rather than a threat. Japan embraced the issue of diversity by following the ‘Sakie Fukushima’s model of Global Executives’ wherein new national curriculum encourages individuality and personal achievement, along with consensus and collective interest (Tam, p.129)

            Because of the collective participation of Japan’s people and industries, the principles of Koizumi doctrine became very effective in making the country we see today, a country rich in culture, technology, and economic resources. My question is: How did other countries with the same or better economic standing compared to Japan see its growth as? If they saw Japan’s reformation as a threat again after the world war, how was trust created between the countries?

Work Reference:  Tam Siew Man. “Japan’s Grand Strategic Shift from Yoshida to Koizumi Reflections on Japan’s Strategic Focus on the 21^st Century”

Image url: http://www.mtwjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/japan_country.png