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

Total Indochinese Refugees Admitted as Residents

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

1975-81 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Year

Population

Median G7 Country,excluding Japan

Japan

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

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

19521959196619731980198719942001

Year

Population

Korean Residents

Foreign Residents

Koreans with Rootsin the ColonialPeriod

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?