Leave Asia, Join Europe? Refugees, Foreigners, and International Human Rights Norms in Japan Michael Strausz University of Tsukuba, June 23, 2006 Outline I. Puzzle II. Alternate Explanations III. My Explanation: A Theory of Contested National Identity IV. Contested National Identity in Japan I. Puzzles A. Why do some international norms influence state behavior more than others? B. Why did international norms about treatment of foreign residents influenced Japan’s policy so much in the 1970s and 1980s while international norms about refugee admissions were much less influential? Policy Changes of the 1970s and 1980s 1. Public sector employment 2. Social safety net 3. Education Population Total Indochinese Refugees Admitted as Residents 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Median G7 Country, excluding Japan Japan 1975-81 1982 1983 1984 Year 1985 1986 1987 II. Alternate Explanations A. Realism/Reactive State B. Liberal Institutionalism C. Constructivism III. My Explanation: Contested National Identity A. Summary B. Key concepts 1. Cultural Context 2. Elite Consensus IV. Contested National Identity in Japan A. Key Debate B. Postwar Consensus: Separatist Idea (“分離的な発 想” - Yamawaki Keizo) C. Challenges to the Consensus in 1970s D. New Consensus Emerges: Cautious Humanitarianism A. Key debate in Japan B. Postwar Consensus: Separatist Idea Masuyama Noboru, A Section Chief in the Bureau of Immigration, 1969: “It is not in the interest of Japan for Koreans to remain here. The line of thinking that suggests that ‘if they can, it would be best if they leave’ is predominant.” “日本にいる朝鮮の人を日 本に置いてやることは、そ れが、日本にとって利益だ というケースはほとんどあり ません。できれば帰った方 がいいんだと、こういう思 想が支配的です” C. Crises of 1970s 1. It becomes clear that foreigners aren’t leaving 2500000 Korean Residents 1500000 Foreign Residents 1000000 Koreans with Roots in the Colonial Period 500000 0 19 52 19 59 19 66 19 73 19 80 19 87 19 94 20 01 Population 2000000 Year C. Crises of 1970s 1. It becomes clear that foreigners aren’t leaving 2. Western practice changes 3. Local government and judicial challenges in Japan 4. Zainichi activism 5. Fall of Saigon MOFA’s objection to reservations to Refugee Convention in 1981: “Of the 80 countries that ratified the treaty, only three developed countries have made reservations, and if we did that, we would be inviting international criticism” “同条約加入八十カ 国のうち保留つきは 先進国では三カ国 にすぎず、そんなこ とをすれば国際的批 判を招く” MOFA’s statement regarding expansion of Indochinese refugee quota in 1981: “In sum, by means of this [expanding of the Indochinese refugee quota to 3000], we have entered the same level as a small or mid-sized European state” “これでようやく 国際的には、 欧州の中小国 並みになった” D. New Consensus: Cautious Humanitarianism 1. Unhappy foreign populations threaten Japan’s domestic security and harmony (“cautious element” - protect homogeneity) 2. Failure to join international human rights regimes hurts Japan’s international standing (“humanitarian” element; related to 脱亜入欧) 3. What will 少子化, Japan’s declining population, mean for the cautious humanitarian consensus?
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
