Paper
James L. Schoff, Douglas E. Rake, Joshua Levy
{
"authors": [
"James L. Schoff"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"Japan"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Shinzo Abe’s Historic U.S. Visit
The main goal of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the United States was was to lay the foundation for greater alliance cooperation going forward.
Published on May 7, 2015
Source: Diplomat
Speaking to the Diplomat, Carnegie’s James L. Schoff explained that the major highlight of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the United States was the new defense guidelines between the United States and Japan, announced at the earlier “2+2” meeting, even though these guidelines did not directly involve the prime minister’s visit. These guidelines bring fundamental changes, he explained, such as greater integration for noncombat operations and the establishment of mechanisms to deepen alliance coordination. He said that the goal of Abe’s actual visit and his speech to Congress was to lay the foundation for greater alliance cooperation going forward and that this was accomplished.
Schoff also discussed Abe’s speech to Congress, which was considered by some to be a preview for remarks he will make in the fall of this year commemorating the end of the war. Schoff said that Abe chose to focus on the U.S.-Japan relationship in his talks and addressed an American audience.Turning back to the guidlines, Schoff explained that they were a product of three separate scenarios: the Japanese government shifting from DPJ to LDP control and the Japanese public’s subsequent simultaneous disenchantment with DPJ policies and sufficient acceptance of the LDP’s platform, the continued existence of North Korean nuclear weapons along with China’s increased military spending and disagreement with Japan over territory issues, and worry in the Asia-Pacific over U.S. staying power in the region. The guidelines enable greater integration: both the United States and Japan should be able to come to each other’s aid and engage in mutual asset protection, which would result in a more balanced relationship between the two countries. He said that this potential closeness was a psychological deterrence in-and-of-itself, and Japan now has more responsibility for its own defense.
The guidelines should also be of use for encouraging future of trilateral cooperation, Schoff added. He said that more planning between Japan and the United States should make it easier to plan with other countries, such as Australia and South Korea. Schoff said that cooperation would be easier with Australia than South Korea, because the United States already has an information sharing agreement in place with Australia. He added that while Japan may not necessarily take more actions to engage more in multilateral and minilateral cooperation, it can definitely engage in more planning.
About the Author
James L. Schoff
Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program
James L. Schoff was a senior fellow in the Carnegie Asia Program. His research focuses on U.S.-Japan relations and regional engagement, Japanese technology innovation, and regional trade and security dynamics.
- A High-Tech Alliance: Challenges and Opportunities for U.S.-Japan Science and Technology Collaboration
- What’s the U.S. Take on Russia-Japan Relations?Commentary
James L. Schoff
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?Commentary
Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 EraResearch
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
- +6
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
- The Middle Power Moment?Collection
The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.
Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?
- Can Mullin Revive FEMA?Commentary
Restoring competence and trust to the anemic, neglected disaster recovery agency is a matter of national security.
Sarah Labowitz, Debbra Goh
