Bargaining model can be said as a new model in the analysis of politics and war. Although politics and war are two different things, but Carl von by Clausewitz had expressed that “war is politics by other means”.
By Syafril Hidayat
Padjadjaran University, Indonesia
Bargaining
model can be said as a new model in the analysis of politics and war. Although
politics and war are two different things, but Carl von by Clausewitz had
expressed that “war is politics by other means”. The bargaining model is an
analytical model that is still being debated and still requires
interdisciplinary enrichment. This model also still needs to be tested
primarily related to the ability estimates, the completion estimates, and the
exchange of interests between the two rival groups (Reiter, 2003).
The bargaining
model is traditionally linked closely to the economic behavior in trade. The
bargaining process is carried out by at least two actors in order to reach
agreement on a treaty (Kennan & Wilson, 1993). The bargaining model itself
in politics and war is a new alternative in the analysis. The bargaining model
focuses on the analysis of the causes, prosecution, termination and the
consequences in a war as a process of theoretical consistency (Reiter, 2003).
All factors
are debated scientifically, as an integral part altogether or separately. Some
researchers believe there are possibly two, or one, factors in a single case.
Schelling (1960) focused on the causes, while Kecskemeti (1958), Ikle (1991),
and Pillar (1983) focused on the termination. Blainey (1973) studied on the
causes and consequences (Reiter, 2003). Those point of views explain conflicts
in Europe and Western colonization of Africa and Asia.
Thomas
Schelling (1960) stated that conflict situations are essentially bargaining
situations. So this model is increasingly constructed and applied in the
dynamics of government and legislators in some countries (Reiter, 2003). This
model still requires ongoing enrichment from the disciplines of war,
International Relations, psychology, public policy, etc. The conceptual theory
of bargaining model can be applied in examining Japanese foreign policy
reconstruction under Shinzo Abe’s administration.
In the
bargaining model, the causes of war rest on three conditions, explicitly:
1)
the absence of an agreement between the warring parties,
2) the lack of
agreement to avoid battle in the future, and
3) inability of bargaining to
prevent war if the disputed items remain unresolved (Fearon, 1995, 1998).
To look at
Abe’s conservative policy, it is more appropriate to use the Realist
perspective in the study of International Relations, in which a state perceives
other states as threats. Thus, states try to achieve balance of power in the
international system to survive in the midst of the magnitude of the pressure /
interest of other states.
The Absence of
an Agreement between Japan and China
The cause of
Japan’s renaissance was the absence of an agreement between China and Japan
over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands after World War II. China had never wanted this
issue to be resolved through international institutions. Even though Japan had
bought the region, the aerial territorial boundaries claimed by Japan and China
are overlapping.
On another
topic, China has continuously been demanding for prosecution of Japanese war
crimes. But Japan considered that the wartime Japanese soldiers and officers
had been prosecuted for their war crimes. Implicitly, Japanese protest against
China’s and other countries’ psychological distress was symbolized by Abe’s
visit to the Yasukuni Shrine.
Prosecutions,
in bargaining model, are made since war or conflict justified by the forces
involved. When the forces try to reach one or more tasks such as the destruction
of the opponents’ will, destruction of civilian property and others, it is
justification of war. In the case of between Japan and China, occupation of
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands unilaterally by China or Japan can be seen as
justification of war and bargaining model is applied.
Thus the
military had been used as part of the bargaining process to achieve the goals.
Even though open conflict between Japan and China has never happened yet, the
Abe’s administration concerns regarding China had raised the steps taken by
Japan leading to a new balance of power. Abe’s concerns were well-founded as a
result of the fact that China had been arresting fishermen in the
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and installing its flag on the Paracel and Spratly
Islands.
In the
bargaining model, termination is achieved when:
1) the troops
reached a total occupation or destruction of the enemy that cannot survive as a
total of victory achievement, and
2) forces can
reduce uncertainty about the abilities or the destruction of the opponent.
Those two factors have materialized in the form of China’s Air Defense Identification
Zone (ADIZ) over the Senkaku/Diaoyu.
Japan assumed
that China would expand its territory. Abe finally seek to reposition over
military and defence policy by trying to gradually amend the Japanese
Constitution’s Article 9 relating to the role of the Japan Self-Defence Forces
by calling for a revision of Article 96 specifying the process for making
amendments. It can lead to a new perspective on the pacific constitution that
has prevailed so far. Thus the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands seem like hot-spot for
both Japan and China and remain having overlapping claim over it.
In the
bargaining model, consequences focus more on post-war stability required. The
longer a war lasts, the longer the peace created will last (Smith & Stam,
2002). Yet this stage has not happened until now. Retrospective war wounds
between the two countries had led to no absolute agreement over the victims of
violence due to war between Chinese and Japanese. After war, Japan has also
been claiming to be a victim of war crimes.
Japan's
domestic political developments has resulted in a changing conservative
orientations and estimates of other state actors, especially those in the East
China Sea and in general in the South China Sea region and Asia-Pacific.
Long
historical background of Japanese fascism in Asia-Pacific region will lead to
the effort of balance of power. States will naturally pursue power by
combining, separating, or non-aligning with the existing great powers. It will
be possible to form alliances or group or another pact. Abe still has strong
desire to restore Japan by amending its Self-Defence Forces roles.
Japan’s policy
in security issues will remain a major focus for countries in the Asia-Pacific,
especially Southeast Asia. With the diversity of political views of each
state actor in Southeast Asia, there will be reconfiguration into groups of
liberal democratic, socialist-communist, and nonaligned states. Whether this
situation will lead back to a Cold War-like situation or ‘Little Cold War’ in
Asia-Pacific region is still a wait and see. We still have to wait for better
further developments.
Cite this Article:
Hidayat,
Syafril: Japan's Renaissance and Its Effect to ASEAN. In: Journal of ASEAN
Studies 2 (2014), 1, pp. 42-48. URN:
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-441672
This article is an abridged excerpt from above mentioned document which is made available under a CC BY-NC
Licence (Attribution-NonCommercial) by the author and original publisher. For more Information see:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
