In a more dangerous Asia, Japan’s new nat’l security strategy outlines stunning changes. The doubling of defense spending breaks a long-standing norm (the 1% of GDP ceiling) that held for decades. Japan will leap from world’s ninth-largest defense spender…to third. 1/x
Jse leaders have debated the legality of counterstrike (striking enemy territory if J absorbs missive attacks) since the 1950’s. It was considered power projection and therefore against J’s doctrine of “defensive defense.” Over the years the norm held…until now. 2/x
Cue the inevitable clickbait (and Chinese statements) about Japan’s “remilitarization.” Nope. These changes are a surprisingly delayed effort to bolster J’s security in responses to its much more dangerous region. 3/x
Tokyo and Seoul, which in response to shared threats have recently shown the promise of cooperation, manage to avoid even a momentary sense of unity and purpose m.koreaherald.com/amp/view.php?u… 4/x
Lots of scholars, myself included, refute the common claim that Afghanistan has shattered US credibility in eyes of allies & adversaries. Good reasons for skepticism (see earlier 🧵) 1/n
BUT: in my writing these days I argue that the US has a *growing credibility problem.* Namely, the credibility of American promises is eroding in E. Asia: China’s buildup is greatly reducing the US ability to flow forces into the region on behalf of allies in the event of war
This claim relies on the theory (which has lots of empirical support…esp see Daryl Press)…that credibility in eyes of adversaries and allies hinges on a country’s power and interests engaged —not from reputation in distant theaters/issues.
I enjoyed Dan's essay. I agree that there is a lot of freaking out vis-a-vis China: misguided calls to veer from engagement to containment, and China-bashing as demonstrated in the NRSC report politico.com/news/2020/04/2…
I’m writing a book on how countries rise to become great powers, so wanted to offer a few related comments on Dan's essay.