Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T07:51:11.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Same War—Different Views: Germany, Japan, and Counterterrorism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2003

Peter J. Katzenstein
Get access

Abstract

German and Japanese counterterrorism policies differ from those adopted by the United States as well as from one another. Defeated in war, occupied, and partially remade during the Cold War, Germany and Japan became clients of the United States first, then close allies. Both countries offer easy tests to explore the extent to which the United States can hope to fight the war against terrorism, as it did the Cold War, supported by a broad coalition of like-minded states. On this central point the article's conclusion is not reassuring. In contrast to the Cold War, the relative importance of different self-conceptions and institutional practices appears to be larger and the systemic effects constraining national divergences smaller. Even among the closest allies of the United States, the very early stages of the war against terrorism point to substantial strains. Over a prolonged period such strains are likely to affect profoundly long-standing patterns of alliance.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , Fall 2003 , pp. 731 - 760
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armacost, Michael H., and Pyle, Kenneth B.. 2001. Japan and the Engagement of China: Challenges for U.S. Policy Coordination, NBR Analysis 12 (5):5–62.Google Scholar
Booth, Ken, and Dunne, Tim, eds. 2002. Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of the Global Order New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael E. et al. eds. 2000. America's Strategic Choices, rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chalk, Peter. 1998. Political Terrorism in South East Asia. Terrorism and Political Violence 10 (2):118–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correspondence. 2002. “The World Responds to September 11. 2002,” Correspondence: An International Review of Culture & Society 9:1–39.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Martha. 2002. Terrorism, Strategies, and Grand Strategies: Domestic or Structural Constraints? Paper presented at the 43d Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, March, New Orleans, La.Google Scholar
Cronin, Audrey Kurth. 2002. Rethinking Sovereignty: American Strategy in the Age of Terrorism. Survival 44 (2):119–39.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Jim et al. 1994. Two Seconds Under the World: Terror Comes to America: The Conspiracy Behind the World Trade Center Bombing. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Falkenrath, Richard. 2001. Analytic Models and Policy Prescription: Understanding Recent Innovation in U.S. Counterterrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24 (3): 159–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, William. 1990. Blood and Rage: The Story of the Japanese Red Army. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Furukawa, Shun'ichi. 2000. An Institutional Framework for Japanese Crisis Management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 8 (1):3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gershman, John. 2002. Is Southeast Asia the Second Front? Foreign Affairs 81 (4):60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter. 1977. International-Trade, Domestic Coalitions and Liberty: Comparative Responses to Crisis of 1873–1896. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8 (2):281–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurowitz, Amy I. 1999. Mobilizing International Norms: Domestic Actors, Immigrants, and the State (Germany, Japan, Canada, Malaysia). Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Hedman, Eva-Lotta. 2002. The Threat of “Islamic Terrorism’? A View from Southeast Asia. Harvard Asia Quarterly 6 (2):38–43.Google Scholar
Hershberg, Eric, and Moore, Kevin W., eds. 2002. Critical Views of September 11: Analyses from Around the World. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Heymann, Philip B. 2001. Dealing with Terrorism—An Overview. International Security 26 (3):24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higuchi, Tateshi. 2001. Inter-Agency Partnerships Against Criminal Organizations. Occasional Paper 01-01. Cambridge, Mass.: Program on U.S.-Japan Relations, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Itabashi, Isao, Ogawara, Masamichi, and Leheny, David. 2002. Constrained Reforms in Japan's Counterterrorism Policies. In Combating Terrorism: Strategies for Ten Countries, edited by Alexander, Yonah, 337–73. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jansen, Klaus. 2001. Fighting Terror in Germany. Washington D.C.: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. Available at ⟨http://www.aicgs.org/strategic/publications.shtml⟩. Accessed 19 May 2003.Google Scholar
Japan Society, The National Institute for Research Advancement (Tokyo), and The Research Institute for Peace and Security (Tokyo). 2001. New Approaches to U.S. Japan Security Cooperation: Conference Report. In New Approaches to U.S.-Japan Security Cooperation: Terrorism Prevention and Preparedness, edited by Green, Michael, 11–37. New York: Japan Society.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1990. West Germany's Internal Security Policy: State and Violence in the 1970s and 1980s. Occasional Paper 28. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Studies in International Affairs, Western Societies Program, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996. Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J, ed. 1997. Tamed Power: Germany in Europe. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1998. Left-Wing Violence and State Response: United States, Germany, Italy, and Japan, 1960s–1990s. Working Paper 98.1. Ithaca, N.Y.: Institute for European Studies, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2002. Security. Unpublished manuscript, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Okawara, Nobuo. 2001. Japan, Asian-Pacific Security and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism. International Security 26 (3):153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Shiraishi, Takashi, eds. 1997. Network Power: Japan and Asia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Tsujinaka, Yutaka. 1991. Defending the Japanese State: Structures, Norms, and the Political Responses to Terrorism and Violent Social Protest in the 1970s and 1980s. Ithaca, N.Y.: East Asia Program, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kawano, Makoto. 1999. The Targets of U.S. and Japanese Intelligence After the Cold War. Occasional Paper 99-06. Cambridge, Mass.: Program on U.S.-Japan Relations, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kurlantzick, Joshua. 2001. Fear Moves East: Terror Targets the Pacific Rim. Washington Quarterly 24(1):19–29.Google Scholar
Lansford, Tom. 2002. All for One: Terrorism, NATO and the United States. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Leheny, David. 2000. Watch or Die!: Two Rocks and a Hard Place in Japan's Counterterrorism Policies. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August–September, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Leheny, David. 2001a. Symbols, Strategies, and Choices for Political Science after September 11. Unpublished paper, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Leheny, David. 2001b. Tokyo Confronts Terror. Policy Review 110 (December/January):37–47.Google Scholar
Leheny, David. 2002. Strategies, Symbols, and Choices for International Relations Scholarship after September 11. Dialogue-IO (April):57–70. Available at ⟨http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/INOR/Dialogue_IO/leheny.pdf⟩. Accessed 19 May 2003.Google Scholar
Leheny, David. Forthcoming. The War on Terrorism in Asia and the Possibility of Secret Regionalization. In Remapping Asia (tentative title), edited by Pempel, T. J..Google Scholar
Lepsius, Oliver. 2002. Das Verhältnis von Sicherheit und Freiheitsrechten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland nach dem 11 September 2001. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Maeda, Tetsuo. 2002. Nichi-Bei anpo saiteigi kara yujihosei [From redefinition of the Japan-U.S. security relationship to the comprehensive emergency measures law], translated by Koschmann, Victor, Gunshuku [Disarmament] 266 (December):6–11. Available at ⟨http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3037&sectionID=44⟩.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Masters, Roger D. 1993. Beyond Relativism: Science and Human Values. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Maull, H. W. 2001. Internationaler Terrorismus: Die deutsche Aussenpolitik auf dem Prufstand. Internationale Politik 56 (12):1–10.Google Scholar
Mead, Walter Russell. 2001. Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Midford, Paul. 2002. The Logic of Reassurance and Japan's Grand Strategy. Security Studies 11 (3):1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyasaka, Naofumi. 2001. Terrorism and Antiterrorism in Japan: Aum Shinrikyo and After. In Terrorism Prevention and Preparedness: New Approaches to U.S.-Japan Security Cooperation, edited by Green, Michael, 67–83. New York: Japan Society.Google Scholar
Miyawaki, Raisuke. 2001. Lessons in Fighting Terrorism: American and Japanese Perspective [sic]. Remarks prepared for the Global Security Roundtable at the Japan Society, November 7, New York.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1951. In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Mullins, Mark R. 1997. The Political and Legal Response to Aum-Related Violence in Japan: A Review Article. The Japan Christian Review 63:37–46.Google Scholar
Mylroie, Laurie. 2001. Study of Revenge, 2d ed. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Okawara, Nobuo, and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2001. Japan and Asian-Pacific Security: Regionalization, Entrenched Bilateralism and Incipient Multilateralism. The Pacific Review 14 (2):165–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pangi, Robyn. 2002. Consequence Management in the 1995 Sarin Attacks on the Japanese Subway System. BCSIA Discussion Paper 2002-4. Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parachini, Jon V. 2000. The World Trade Center Bombers (1993). In Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons, edited by Tucker, Jonathan B., 185–206. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sansoucy, Lisa. 1998. Aum Shinrikyo and the Japanese State. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 1976. The Concept of the Political, translated by Schawb, George. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Steinhoff, Patricia G. 1996. From Dangerous Thoughts to Dangerous Gas: A Frame Analysis of the Control of Social Movements in Japan. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, August, New York.Google Scholar
Steinhoff, Patricia G. n.d. “Who Really Kidnapped Those Japanese in North Korea?” Unpublished paper, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Szymkowiak, Kenneth, and Steinhoff, Patricia G.. 1995. Wrapping Up in Something Long: Intimidation and Violence by Right-Wing Groups in Postwar Japan. Terrorism and Political Violence 7 (1):265–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, Andrew. 2000. Armed Rebellion in the ASEAN States: Persistence and Implications. CP135. Canberra, Australia: Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Trubowitz, Peter. 1998. Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tuschoff, Christian, n.d. The Ties That Bind: Institutions, Allied Commitments, and NATO After September 11. Unpublished paper, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob. 2002. Bush at War. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar