(Project of the Kajima Institute of International Peace)
The Network Hegemony Theory for a Security Architecture in The Asia Pacific Region
Chairman, the Society of Security and Diplomatic Policy Studies
The Asia Pacific region is now a center of economic growth in the world. No large-scale war took place for the past half century with the exception of the Vietnam War. I believe that a comparatively safe and stable situation in the region has contributed to the high economic growth. Safety and stability should be maintained for the further economic development in the region
I would therefore like to discuss the following questions: Is there a security architecture in the region? Do we have to transform such an architecture into an international framework?
The current security arrangement in the Asia Pacific region
First, in this region there is an alliance network in a hub (the U.S.) and spoke type. The Japan-US alliance is one of them.
Second, there are multilateral security related organizations in Asia; the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN+3 (Japan, China, Korea), the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM+), the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), the ASEAN Community, and the East Asia Summit (EAS). Are they security architectures?
There is an opinion that the Asia Pacific region should introduce an organization like NATO or the EU. The EU has a function as a security architecture.
Professor Ken Jimbo analyzed the region's security status in three layers. The first layer includes bilateral alliances with the US and their networking. The second layer is an ad-hoc security cooperation, and the third one is the institutionalizing of regional security cooperation like the ADMM+.
I will show what security models (theories) are applied to the Asia Pacific region as follows.
Hegemonic Stability/Balance of Power Model
First, the hegemonic stability model means that a major power like the US establishes the hegemony through its economic and military power and provides stability and order as international public goods. The reality is that two or more major powers (hegemonic states) exist and they try to balance powers instead of extending hegemony to others. Peace and stability are secured with a balance of powers among hegemonic states.
I call this status "the hegemonic stability/balance of power model".
In this paper I use the term "hegemony" in a positive meaning as the hegemony provides an international order that is a public good, to secure peace and stability in the region.
Collective Defense Model
Second, many bilateral military alliances with the US exist in this region. The Japan-US alliance, the Korea-US alliance, the Australia-US alliance etc. deter and prevent military conflicts in the region. This is called a hub and spoke alliance system.
We can see the same model in the China-Russia strategic partnership. In the region there is not a multilateral security treaty for collective defense such as NATO.
I call this status "the collective defense model". This model is believed to be a last resort (using military power) for securing states in an anarchy of international relations' situation.
Cooperative/Collective Security Model
Third, in Europe the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) started after the end of the Cold War replacing the CSCE that was launched during the Cold War. This is a typical cooperative security system. In the Asia Pacific region, the ASEAN launched in 1967 has developed the ARF, the ASEAN+3, the ADMM+ in security fields. The ASEAN Community, the EAS and the EAS Community have been recently focused on from security viewpoints.
On the other hand, the UN peace keeping operations have achieved results under a collective security concept.
These systems mentioned above are not expected to use military powers. In this sense they share a common character.
I call this situation "the cooperative/collective security model".
Comprehensive Security Model
Current security discussions cover a broad area, including issues of economy, energy, food, disaster, environment, poverty, terrorism and so on. The late Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira launched a special committee that submitted a report on a comprehensive security concept in 1980. This concept is characterized as a security system that uses military powers as little as possible to secure peace and stability by engaging in a broad area.
I call this "the comprehensive security model".
Functioning of the four Models with a Security Governance
I would say that these 4 models function in a parallel fashion in the Asia Pacific region.
The US hegemonic power has declined. As the rising powers like China and India have expanded their sphere of influence, several major powers have built hegemonic powers with balancing powers among them. These major states include China, India, Japan, Australia, Indonesia other than the US and Russia.
At the same time the ARF, the ADMM+, the EAS have provided the cooperative security to some extend and the UN PKO has played active roles. The cooperative/collective security model works well.
In many cases security dialogues and security cooperation have engaged in broad issues including economy, energy, food, disaster and so on. You can see such a discussion at the ARF and the ADMM+ meetings. The comprehensive security is functioning.
The collective defense model works basically as a last resort to defense each country from military attacks.
What is important is that these 4 models work in a parallel due to different situations and conditions related to security situations in this region. It means that different security works are managed in a whole, which in general is described as a governance. This governance can be thought a security architecture.
Engagement of several states with Forming a Network Hegemony - Network Hegemonic Stability Model
These models mentioned above are engaged by as many states as having will and ability to the security in the region. Several major powers are engaged in the case of the hegemonic stability/balance of power model. Many states are involved in the cooperative/collective security model.
The importance is that there are special relations among these states, which can be defined as a network. The network is not meant a just mutual relation. They move on the same direction. This direction is the provision of international public goods. In other words, the network provides public goods for peace and stability in the region. As I define the hegemony as a body that provides international goods, I can call this system "the network hegemonic stability model".
In further discussions the network hegemony can be called "the Pax Amicitia" replacing the Pax Americana. As the word "Amicitia" has a meaning of friendly, we can use the Pax Amicitia instead of the Pax Americana as "friendly states with a will and an ability" provide international public goods. There is no word in Latin for "network".
With regards to the network hegemony I want to touch one more point. I discussed the network among players. We can also recognize a network among models, the hegemonic stability/balance of power model, the collective defense model, the cooperative/collective security model and the comprehensive security model.
The cooperative/collective security model depends on the hegemonic stability/balance of power model. The cooperative/collective model and the comprehensive security model are two sides of the same coin that represent an institute and an objective respectively. The comprehensive security model is dependent on the collective defense model. Recognizing of a network among several security models is helpful to understand the network hegemony theory and operate the model efficiently.
Institutionalization of the Network Hegemony
The image of institutionalized network hegemony is like the NATO in the Asia Pacific region. But it is not easy to realize in near future. Instead, I try to envisage an idea as follows.
The EAS includes as the members many states like the ASEAN member states, the US, Japan, China, Russia, India, Australia and so on. They launch a special committee, "Security Consultative Committee" to discuss security issues. The committee is seasonally held and they discuss what security actions have been taken for a past one year. The committee is not set to decide something but to just discuss among the members.
I think it is not difficult to set up such a committee and even the just discussion will bring a big influence on the peace and stability in the region.
- September 2018: "The Taiwan Policy of the Xi Jinping Administration in its Second Term: An Outlook on Cross-Strait Relations in the New Era" written by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Professor of the Tokyo University
- July 2018: "The EU States and Russia on North Korea Issues- Expansion of Influence through Diplomacy: Attempts and Limitations -" lectured by Yuichi Hosoya, Professor of Keio University
- "An Assessment of the US-North Korea Summit and an Outlook for the Future of the Korean Peninsula" lectured by Junya Nishino, Professor of Keio University
- "Korean Peninsula Issue and Japan's Future Security Policy" written by Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
- July 2018: "US North Korea policy affected by personnel changes in the Trump administration" lectured by Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
- "China-North Korea relationship under Xi Jinping" lectured by Shin Kawashima, Professor of the Tokyo University.
- "North Korean Denuclearization and Russia" lectured by Nobuo Shimotomai, Professor of the Hosei University.
- March 2018: "The Network Hegemony Theory for a Security Architecture in The Asia Pacific Region" lectured by Masahiro Akiyama, Chairman, the Society of Security and Diplomatic Policy Studies
- January 2018: "A Destabilized Middle East" lectured by Koichiro Tanaka, Professor, Keio University
- December 2017: "Problems in Sino-Japanese Relations, 1992-2042" lectured by Ezra F. Vogel, Professor of the Social Sciences Emeritus at Harvard University
- November 2017: "The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region" written by Yoriko Kawaguchi, Fellow, the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs, Former Minister Foreign Affairs
- October 2017: "A New Trend in India's Foreign Policy and Japan" Written by HIROSE,Takako, Professor, Senshu University
- August 2017: "The Shocks that shook the Transatlantic World and their Implication for Japan's Foreign Policy" written by HOSOYA, Yuichi, Professor, Keio University
- August 2017: "Does Economic Interdependence not Encourage Collaboration? ―Thinking Japan-China Relations from an Economic Perspective―" written by Takashi SEKIYAMA, Ph.D., Toyo University
- July 2017: Proposal article "The Trump Administration's Impact on the Cross-Strait Relations" written by Yasuhiro Matsuda, Ph.D.
- June 2017: Proposal article "The outlook for the relationship between two great powers and implications for Japanese diplomacy" written by Professor Shin Kawashima
- May 2017: (Emergency Proposal) Facing the Inconvenient Truth: Re-examining Policy for Peace and Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (Chief author, Masao Okonogi)
- March 2017: "Economic Influences of the Trump Administration" written by Professor Motoshige Ito
- February, 2017: Proposal article "Trump's Foreign and Security Policy - Unpredictable President, Realistic Secretaries - " written by Mr. Tsuneo Watanabe is posted on the website of SSDP.
- December, 2016: Proposal article "Reconsidering North Korea Policy: How to Deal with a Nuclear Armed Divided States" written by Professor Masao Okonogi is posted on the website of SSDP.
- September 2018: "Taiwan Identity and Cross-Strait Relations and Trump's Taiwan Policy and the Future of Taiwan-US Relations-Discussion at The Second Japan-Taiwan Strategic Dialogue (June 21, 2018, Taipei)-" written by OGATA, Makoto
- September 2018: "Japan-Taiwan Dialogue 2018 Minutes", 21st June 2018, Taipei, Taiwan.
- July 2018: Report on The Second Japan – Philippines Strategic Dialogue prepared by Ms. Vindu Mai Chotani, Ph.D. Student, Graduate School of Public Policy, Tokyo University.
- May 2018: "Civilian Control "at Crisis"? – Perhaps Not, for the Case of the Field Sit-reps from SDF's South Sudan Mission" reported by Ippeita Nishida, Research Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation
- January 2018: "Fukushima, Genki？Project－Young Taiwanese volunteers introduce the facts on Fukushima's revival through documentary films－" reported by OGATA, Makoto, Former Chief of the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association in Taipei
- December 2017: "Commemorating a Quarter Century of Dispatches of the JSDF's PKO Units: Challenges and Possibilities in the Post South Sudan" written by Takayuki Shoji, Lecturer, Nihon University
- November 2017: "19th CCP National Congress" written by Mr. Bonji Ohara, Senior Research Fellow, the Sasakawa Peace Fondation
- October 2017: "What is Japan's Role in the Indo-China border conflict?" written by Dr. NGAO,Satoru, Research Fellow, Institute for Future Engineering
- July 2017: "Overview of the Current Situation in Taiwan-" the Naturally Independent Generation" will affect the Taiwan"s politics-" written by Makoto Ogata MGE.(Ret.)
- June 2017: "Japan-U.S. Economic Dialogue" written by Mr.Takaaki Asano
- March 2017: "The Japan-Philippines Strategic Dialogue" written by Mr. Hideshi Tokuchi
- February, 2017: Current topic "The Importance of Japan's Security Role Under Trump" written by Dr. Satoru Nagao is posted on the SSDP website.
- December, 2016: Current topic "Widening Security Task: Will SDF do the Job?" written by Mr. Ippeita Nishida is posted on the SSDP website.
- September 2018: "2018 Indo-Pacific Security Dialogue" reported by Masahiro Akiyama
- 2017 December: "The Butterfly Project-A possibility of showing a solution to the North Korea problem-"
- October 2017: Campaign on the problems with North Korea
- August 2017: A New Containment Policy Strategy
- June 2017: Korean peninsla
- March 2017: President Duterte
- February, 2017: Kazakhstan
- November, 2016: Participated in Astana Club 2016 held in Kazakhstan on November 14- 16, 2016.