Yohei Takasugi Associate Professor Faculty of Liberal Arts Department of History of Letters, Teikyo University
After serving as a cadet in the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (41st class), he graduated from Faculty of Liberal Arts, Department of History Kokugakuin Graduate School Graduate School of Law Kokugakuin University in 2009, he worked part-time in the Editing Division of the Imperial Household Agency's Archives and Mausolea Department. In 2013, he re-enrolled in the Graduate Graduate School of Kokugakuin University and obtained his PhD in Law. After working as a part-time Senior Assistant Professor at the same university, a member of the History Research Division at the Bank of Japan's Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, and Assistant Professor at Hiroshima University, he was appointed Associate Professor in the Department of History, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Teikyo University in 2019.
To summarize this report ...
The study of Japan's modern and contemporary history was born in order to prevent Japan from repeating wars.
In the future, the lessons learned should be applied not only to Japan's security, but also to the world's security.
Security theories have many things in common across eras and countries, such as prospect theory, which refers to the psychological state of people who are ``averse to loss.''
Security discussions are extremely complex, involving the intertwining interests of each country, and there are aspects of this that cannot be explained simply.
The SDGs, which have a universal theme of realizing a sustainable society, are also similar to the state of security between nations, as they involve a wide variety of interests that are intricately intertwined.
By introducing knowledge from Japan's modern and contemporary history, it should be possible to come up with a new way of understanding the SDGs.
History of the military
My field of expertise is military research. In particular, we focus on the relationship between the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy, politics, and society. The military is a form of armed force and a form of national power, but it differs from country to country. In modern times, there is a history of countries with various political forms emerging and competing for supremacy, such as empires, republics, authoritarianism, democracies, and communism. The military had a major impact on the history of the nation through its interaction with the nation's political form. Therefore, when thinking about modern history, the military is an inevitable research subject. It is no exaggeration to say that the study of modern and contemporary history in Japan was born out of reflection on the war. The idea originated from a strong motive to prevent Japan from repeating its own mistakes by elucidating the history and reasons why Japan waged such reckless wars in the past. In this way, modern Japan has become an extremely pacifist nation, thanks in part to the efforts of its predecessors. In a sense, the ideal situation is becoming a reality. On the other hand, researchers of modern Japanese history living in modern times like us are faced with the need to redefine the purpose of our research. This is because in modern Japan, where pacifism and democracy are deeply rooted, it is difficult to imagine that the military (Self-Defense Forces) would go out of control and Japan itself would take the lead in starting a war, as it did in the past.
In this context, I believe that the lessons learned from research on modern Japanese history can be spread not only to Japan, but to the entire world as a universal lesson. This will be applied to global security issues. In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on security-related issues, such as the Taiwan issue, the Senkaku Islands issue, the Korean Peninsula issue, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The world is once again in the mood for open war. That's why I feel that the value of considering security from a historical perspective is increasing.
people afraid of losing
Are you familiar with prospect theory? It is known as a representative result of behavioral economics based on psychology. Simply put, people value losses more than gains. For example, if you lost your wallet containing 10,000 yen, you would desperately search for it. So, if you were told that your wallet with 10,000 yen in it might be left somewhere, would you try hard to find it? Prospect theory cites the idea of a reference point as an important element involved in this judgment. In the previous example, when looking for your wallet, the reference point is ``before you dropped your wallet.'' Therefore, searching desperately to avoid losses is not unnatural from prospect theory. On the other hand, if the lost wallet is not yours, the reference point is ``the present moment when you don't have the wallet,'' so you don't have to be desperate because there is no loss in the first place.
This idea can also be applied to security issues. Historically, wars have often started because both parties did not accurately recognize the differences in their reference points. For example, consider the Japan-US negotiations just before the Pacific War. At the time, Japan was in the midst of the Sino-Japanese War, and had secured a vast area of occupied territory in mainland China. For Japan, the current situation is the reference point, so it cannot abandon the occupied territories, and on the contrary, it thinks that it is possible to force China to give up on the occupied territories. On the other hand, from the perspective of the United States and China, the situation before the occupation is the reference point, so Japan should and could return the occupied territory. Thus, the reference points became mutually exclusive, and there was no solution other than war.
This phenomenon can also be observed in Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Palestinian conflict. Because both parties to the conflict believe that their reference point is absolute and that the other country shares the same reference point, their actions are defensive (loss aversion); They perceive the actions of the other country as aggressive (gaining benefits). And they think that the other country will not be so insistent on taking actions to gain profits. When considering the Taiwan emergency, it is important to be aware that the reference points for China and Taiwan (Japan and the United States) are likely to be different.
Examining the changing society
Looking at it this way, we can see that even though countries and eras are different, there are many commonalities in the principles related to security. This is where we can find the significance of studying modern Japanese history. Based on this standpoint, the conventional inward-looking thinking that peace can be maintained by locating the cause of the war solely in Japan and adhering to "absolute pacifism" is outdated. is obvious.
In Japan today, peace and military power are perceived as contradictory things, but from a global perspective, peace and military power are two sides of the same coin. For example, if the other side perceives that they have sufficient military power, they will hesitate to go to war. This is because they will incur a huge loss to themselves. This means that, conversely, ``pacifism'' may provoke military action by other countries. This may be an unacceptable phenomenon from the perspective of Japanese people, who tend to think that the path to peace is the abandonment of military power. Of course, it is also true that military force risks heightening mutual fear and provoking war. After all, the security debate is extremely complex and ambiguous. You don't know what the other person is thinking, and you don't know if you're conveying exactly what you're thinking to the other person. There are times when we must entrust the fate of an entire nation to individual decisions that are extremely difficult to understand. "Peace" is nothing more than an extremely unstable balance.
However, there was a time when it could be said that global peace was temporarily achieved. It's the Cold War period between the US and Soviet Union. Of course, there were local wars, and the threat of nuclear forces continued to grow. However, considering how much hatred the East and West sides had for each other, it is surprising that World War III was avoided. This means that both sides believe that they are 100% just, but they also understand that the existence of a nuclear balance is important and that both sides must come to a compromise somewhere in order to prevent the worst outcome, which is the destruction of the world. Because it was. And we each did our best to understand that the other person had different ideas than we did. In other words, they had a fairly accurate understanding of each other's reference points. Therefore, it became a cold war without conflict. Although many tragedies occurred, the fact that it did not develop into a full-scale war may be considered a victory for humanity's calmness. At the same time, during this Cold War period, the security debate matured. It was also a major turning point for the way we think about peace and the military.
Similarities between security and SDGs
There is a security idea that military conflict can be avoided by deepening economic and cultural ties. In modern times, countries around the world have increasingly strong interests in a variety of factors, from economics to culture. Mutual understanding has progressed, a mutually beneficial economic relationship has been established, and a situation has been created in which both sides will suffer enormous damage if they fight. There is no doubt that this has prevented war. However, on the other hand, deepening relationships can also create new conflicts. Historically, wars have only occurred between countries with deep economic and cultural ties. The Sino-Japanese war, the Ukraine war, and the Taiwan crisis are conflicts between nations that are closely related economically and culturally. In the end, there is no change in the status of military power as a high priority. It is also true that as economic power grows, military power also grows. In this respect, peaceful (economic and cultural) and military approaches to security can be considered to be compatible. The security debate is incredibly complex.
In fact, I feel that this idea of security and the SDGs are essentially similar. Security discussions include the idea of ``human security,'' which holds that realizing the happiness of individual human beings will ultimately lead to peace for the nation and the world. In that sense, security and the SDGs are actually closely related. The issues faced by the SDGs also have a lot in common with the security debate. The relationship between developed and developing countries is also easier to understand if we consider prospect theory. When discussing economic growth and environmental impact, which are being discussed at COP20 and other forums, where to set the reference point is an important debate. Moreover, in the SDGs, it is not an easy-to-understand issue such as territory, but rather ambiguous issues such as ``future possibilities.'' I think it can be said that we are currently searching for mutual reference points and searching for a compromise. This is where we can see the common denominator between security and the SDGs. Like military power, it is still unclear what will be an important fact in the SDGs. Energy may have something to do with it. In the sense that the entire world is taking action with a common understanding, the possibility of partnerships that have not been seen before between nations is emerging, but at the same time, this is also creating new conflicts. . In a sense, a situation similar to a security debate has arisen. Just being pretty is not going to work, and if we lose sight of our ideals, there will be no future. What power should we have in order to confront the environmental crisis, which is a common challenge for all humankind? I feel it's a really interesting topic.
