In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Journal of Japanese Studies 32.1 (2006) 283-286



[Access article in PDF]

Clarifying Beyond Bilateralism:

A Reply to Edward Lincoln

We appreciate much about Ed Lincoln's review. Naturally, we concur with and would draw readers' attention to the many positive comments he made about the volume. We also accept certain of his criticisms. We might profitably have ignored further discussion in recognition of the wisdom of Brendon Behan's observation that "all publicity is good, except an obituary notice." Lincoln's review is hardly meant as an obituary. However, we believe it may mislead JJS readers on three important points.

First, the review suggests that the book and its chapters seek to prove the "rather simple and obvious concept" (Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 400) that "U.S.-Japan relations used to be dominated by the bilateral dimension but this is less true today" (p. 399). The book does far more. Its central argument is vastly more nuanced, assessing continuities and changes in the bilateral relationship across several different areas, most explicitly security, finance, and trade. Among other things, the book seeks to address just "How Far Beyond Bilateralism?" the relationship has moved in each of these arenas, as well as the costs and benefits, constraints and opportunities both countries now face. Further, we examine differing institutional legacies, the growing importance of nongovernmental circles, the expanding number of arenas within which the relationship plays out, and the changing targets of the relationship.

Rather than seeing multilateralism and bilateralism as simply two separate forces engaged in some zero-sum conflict, we treat them as complex processes that interact with one another in shaping U.S.-Japan relations. We further do not assume the relationship has become totally multilateral; instead we assert that multilateralism is one growing factor shaping the relationship, "although to different degrees in different issue areas" (p. 4).

An explicitly stated conclusion of the volume is that "the security arena remains by far the arena most characterized by bilateralism while global finance is the least" (p. 301). Trade relations fall somewhat in between these two. Yet, even on security, where bilateral links remain the strongest, important changes have altered prior bilateralism. For example, the two have [End Page 283] coped differently with the rise of a new and potentially destabilizing economic and military power, China, and engaged in far more multilateral forums. And in trade, confrontations between the two governments that were once automatically bilateral now tend to play out in multilateral forums such as the World Trade Organization and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, as the book's case studies illustrate.

A second point concerns the book's chronological coverage where Lincoln faults us for not being "au courant." As the review notes, the book relies preponderantly on data and events from the 1980s and 1990s. This, however, is perfectly congruent with our effort to assess long term structural changes and broadly shifting trends creating the current context. Still, most chapters remain sensitive to unfolding events. Despite its 2004 copyright date, the book was published in late 2003. Certainly a careful reading shows that it is incorrect to state, as the review does, that "there is no factual detail in any of the papers beyond the fall of 2001" (p. 401). A cursory skim shows, for example, some 27 references to various activities of the current Bush administration, as well as many events that took place in 2002—the Bali bombing (p. 69), Japan's military deployments to the Indian Ocean (p. 77) and to East Timor, currency swap agreements (p. 216)—and in 2003—the unresolved situation of the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station (p. 68), the inauguration of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun (pp. 18, 307), plus multiple comments linked to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and to the post-2002 nuclear problem in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, among others.

Far more important than lining up such examples, however, is the broader question Lincoln raises: do events since the publication of the book demonstrate a reaffirmation of solid bilateralism in U...

pdf