Japan, Europe must hold line against power plays

By Akihiko Tanaka / Special to The Yomiuri Shimbun

11:00 JST, December 13, 2024

Will power politics prevail in today’s world?

In the war in Ukraine, Russia has reached the point of having North Korea deploy troops along with Russian forces on the front lines. The fighting in the Palestinian territory of Gaza has persisted for more than a year. Tensions in the Taiwan Strait continue to rise, and China has conducted military exercises that appeared to encircle the main island of Taiwan. China has also repeatedly engaged in skirmishes with the Philippines in the South China Sea. And former U.S. President Donald Trump, who won the recent presidential election, has publicly said he will not hesitate to take unilateral action in order to cut deals on terms favorable to the United States.

What kind of international politics should a liberal democracy like Japan — which values the preservation of a rules-based international order and is also an ally of the United States — pursue under these conditions?

International politics is complex. While progress is being observed in international cooperation, there are frequent exercises of power that ignore the rules.

Obviously, domestic politics is not simple either. Still, politics in a democracy like Japan is largely conducted on the basis of rules. If you want to become prime minister, you must follow the rules — first be elected as a Diet member and then be elected prime minister by a majority of the Diet. Disputes over property can ultimately be settled by a court.

In international politics, by contrast, military and economic power is often used directly or indirectly to try to achieve a desired aim. Some countries invade other countries with their military strength. To prevent this, one then has to enhance deterrence through such measures as strengthening the defense capabilities of one’s own country, forming alliances with friendly countries, and conducting joint military exercises. Economic sanctions are used to pressure other countries.

Without squarely facing these realities of power politics, it is impossible to understand international politics.

That said, international politics is not entirely based on power. History shows that the rule of law has been expanding into more and more domains of international politics. From the 19th century on, multilateral agreements were concluded covering such functional areas as the mail and sanitation. Under international law, war became illegal after World War II as stipulated in the U.N. Charter, which followed the Covenant of the League of Nations that went into effect in 1920. These were attempts to establish rules at the heart of international politics.

Many of the world’s democracies, where rules-based internal politics are regularly practiced, have accepted rules-based politics in the international arena. Democratic nations have developed the conviction that problems can be resolved without the use of force. Although disputes will never disappear, it has become commonly understood that one can rely on international frameworks such as the World Trade Organization in the case of a trade conflict, for example.

In the post-Cold War period of the 1990s, expectations for rules-based international politics grew even higher. Both Russia — the successor to the Soviet Union — and China, which was recording remarkable economic growth, were expected to participate in rules-based international politics in the spirit of international cooperation. The creation of an eight-country framework (G8) by adding Russia to the Group of Seven and the promotion of China’s accession to the WTO were signs of those expectations.

But power politics has not disappeared. Civil wars have continued around the world, and attacks by non-state actors have also occurred, as seen in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

The United States launched its “War on Terror,” intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia, for its part, invaded Georgia and unilaterally annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014. China has tried to change the status quo in the South China Sea, ignoring a ruling by an arbitration tribunal.

Taking hints from the Cold War

Then came Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and more intense fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, triggered by the attack on Israel by the Islamist group Hamas. What will happen to the international order based on rules?

To begin with, it is a difficult task to maintain rules-based international politics when there is heightened use of brute force. It seems futile to ask a country that has abandoned rules-based solutions and resorted to force to change its ways and abide by the rules. In this case, a rule-abiding democracy has no choice but to adopt forcible countermeasures. What should be noted here is that even when responding by force to a country violating the rules, the sphere of rules-based international politics needs to be kept as wide as possible.

For instance, many democracies have sanctioned Russia for invading Ukraine, while offering both military and nonmilitary support for Ukraine. The democratic camp rallied its forces to counter Russia’s use of power.

However, international relations today are not focused solely on the Ukraine issue. We should not forget the importance of encouraging as many countries as possible to cooperate in maintaining a rules-based order in a wide range of fields, from global issues such as climate change and infectious diseases to economic issues such as trade and investment.

There is a real-life example from the Cold War era that can be used as a reference. In the early days, the Western and Eastern blocs had very few rules in common. The peace between the two great powers of the United States and the Soviet Union was barely maintained through the logic of power, namely nuclear deterrence.

Even so, this does not mean that rules-based international politics did not develop during this period. The Western bloc began establishing a rules-based international framework that saw gradual participation by developing countries. This international economic order later became known as the Bretton Woods system.

In today’s world, too, countries should work to expand the rules-based international order while taking resolute steps against the use of force that threatens the peace.

This is not easy, however. During the Cold War, it was the United States that not only counterbalanced the Soviet Union but also spearheaded the introduction of the rules-based Bretton Woods system. However, Mr. Trump, who is set to return to the White House in January next year, does not look keen to maintain the rules-based international order; he may make international trade an arena where countries compete for power through tariffs.

While it is uncertain for now in what direction the Trump administration’s policies will evolve, liberal democracies like Japan and Europe will have an extremely significant role to play in preventing power politics from spreading around the world.

To assert the importance of the rules-based international order, it is crucial to prevent Russia from succeeding in its aggression in Ukraine. There is also a need to be tenacious in communicating to Mr. Trump, who could take protectionist measures, that such measures will have significant downsides. To achieve sustainable development goals, including measures to mitigate climate change, Japan, Europe and other liberal democracies should deepen collaboration and create a broad, collaborative framework together with developing countries.

---

Akihiko Tanaka

Tanaka is president of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), a post he took up in April 2022 for the second time after his first stint in 2012-15. He served as president of the Tokyo-based National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) from 2017 to March 2022. Previously, he was vice president of the University of Tokyo from 2009 to 2012.

---

The original article in Japanese appeared in the Dec. 8 issue of The Yomiuri Shimbun.