Japanese Relations with Southeast Asia in an Era of

Turbulence
Lecturer: Ratih Hernigtyas, S.IP., M.A.

Arranged by:

Group II

Annisah Rahmah (20160510078)

Stipani Salsabila (20160510106)
Dhony Kalisno Joan T. (20160510364)
Fadel Quraysh (20160510394)

International Program of International Relations

Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

 Japanese Relations with Southeast Asia in an Era of Turbulence

Lam Peng Er

This article mainly discusses about Japan's relations with ASEAN countries. In
recent decades, actually in the 30th anniversary of the Association of South-East Asian
Nations (ASEAN) in 1997 was supposed to be a crowning moment for the regional grouping.
Because ASEAN itself is the organization has achieved a level of coherence and cooperation
that includes a united front, several ASEAN countries have succeeded in economic
cooperation and benefited, and ASEAN itself believes it will be a successful block leading to
a more united, stable, prosperous and using Southeast Asia greater collective political and
economic power internationally. But all only expectations, when Cambodia's entry into
ASEAN was postponed after severe political violence exploded again in July 1997, the image
of Southeast Asia being destroyed, as well as Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, and perhaps
even Malaysia faced with questions about governance and legitimacy.

The writer wants to examine Japan's relations with ASEAN countries, which are in
poor economic and political positions. Starting in 1990 th Japan was often stereotyped as an
economic superpower but a political dwarf. That was confirmed after Japan's position in
Southeast Asia was expected by Japan to take more initiative and achieve greater success in
the field of economy than in politics. But even when Tokyo adopted a more active political
posture in Southeast Asia, it was relatively reactive when it came to the economic crisis that
developed there in mid-1997. In its journey Japan has helped restore domestic peace in
Cambodia and Myanmar by mediating a peace settlement in Cambodia and trying to persuade
the military junta in Myanmar to adopt a hard-line approach to its domestic opposition. And it
will form a multilateral security forum in East Asia, the precursor to the Asia Regional Forum
(ARF), trying to play a positive role in the dispute over the Spratly Islands in the South China
Sea. But in handling the case of the economic crisis Japan looked doubtful. This is despite the
fact that the region is important to Japan in terms of investment, trade, markets, freedom of
navigation, and foreign assistance, and that Japanese banks have lent billions of dollars and
yen to countries and companies in Southeast Asia, and proposed the establishment of a Fund
Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) and offer financial assistance to the region. However in this
matter, as the book the writer's suggested focus in various Japan diplomatic and strategic
initiatives in Southeast Asia in the 1990s, and seek to explain why Tokyo has been relatively
successful in playing a more active political and strategic role in Southeast Asia, crisis
economic in Southeast Asia, why the yen should become the key currency for regional trade,
ending the almost exclusive reliance on the U.S. dollar.

I. Seeking a Larger Political Role

Japan has a significant economic presence in most Southeast Asian countries, and its
capital is a key factor underlying their economic progress and political stability. Based
on the Fukuda doctrine, this doctrine makes 3 claims about Japan:

- Japan eschews the role of a great military power in the region.

- The nation seeks a heart-to-heart relationship with Southeast Asian countries.
- Aspires to act as a bridge between noncommunist ASEAN countries and communist
states in to address regional polarization and restore regional stability.

The Fukuda doctrine itself was very important for Japan, where Japan explicitly stated its
desire to play more than the role of a single economy even during the Cold War era.
Because Japan want to also play a positive political role to improve regional order and
stability.

II. Provider of Good Offices

a) Indochina
In 1979 the Vietnamese troops succeeded to overthrow the Khmer Rouge from
Phnom Penh and made it difficult for Japan to connect between Vietnam and the
ASEAN states. Unfortunately, China was also failed to push Vietnam out of
Cambodia. However it was not only China who against the occupation of Vietnam in
Cambodia, the United States, Japan, and other ASEAN states were also against
Vietnam and its ally, the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the end of Cold War became a
good start for Japan to start building relations with both Vietnam and Cambodia and
play a more active political role. Vietnam decided to withdraw from Cambodia after
the lack of support from Soviet, along with China that no longer support the Khmer
Rouge faction. The conflicting factions in Cambodia finally accepted Japan’s
overtures as Japan promised to release ODA to help the reconstruction in Cambodia.
The Tokyo conference that was held in 1990 finally led to Paris Peace Accord
which was a peace treaty to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War.
 Later on the Cambodian factions accepted UNTAC and UN also helped to supervise
the elections in Cambodia. After the end of World War II, Japan for the first time sent
troops to Camodia under UN peacekeeping operations which was seen to be more
positive compared to the 1991 Gulf War fiasco. Ironically, a Civil War broke out
again in July 1997 when Co-Prime Minister Hun Sen launched a violent coup against
his erstwhile coalition partner Co-Prime Minister Prince Ranariddh. Together with the
ASEAN countries, again Japan finally succeeded to meditiate an agreement between
the combatants. Japan’s role in Cambodia is higly important to underline the
effectiveness of the UN and its PKOs in the post Cold War era.
b) Myanmar
The political instability also struck out in Myanmar and initiated Japan to send
their diplomats to encourage the Myanmar’s military junta to restraint themselves
toward Aung San Suu Kyi and the democractic movement she leads. As a reward for
their conformation, Japan would provide increased ODA to Myanmar. Japan was
playing a bridging role between Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar’s military junta,
however the good offices provided by Japan remained to be seen whether it’s gonna
be as effective or not. 1998
c) Spratlys Dispute
The Spratly Islands dispute is still being an ongoing territorial dispute between
Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines until today. The sea is
an important shipping route and blessed with abundant of oil and natural gas as well
as a very productive home to fishing grounds [ CITATION BBC163 \l 1057 ] . About 70%
of Japan’s oil tankers pass through the area on their way from the Gulf region to
Japan. In some occasions, executive Japanese leaders including the Prime Minister
Murayama Tomiichi tried to lift up the issue together with the Chinese leaders, but
China refused these attempts at mediation and urged Japan not to be involved in this
issue, especially since they are not one of the claimant states. Japan also tried to
approach Indonesia who was often hosting the annual workshops on the South China
Sea and offered its national capital as an alternative location, but it got rejected by
Indonesia as they believed China would not accept the offer. 1995 CHINA-
PHILIPPINES
III. Japan as a Generator of Ideas
a) The Asian Regional Forum
Nor US only maintaining the freedom of navigation of the sea lanes in
SouthEast Asia (the Strait of Malacca, Sunda Strait, and the Straits of Lombok and
Makassar) as their strategic objective in the region during Cold War [ CITATION
Ric011 \l 1057 ]. Government of US also put their consideration toward multilateral
security forums in SouthEast Asia. Concern from the US is not without the reasonable
matter, indeed that this forums could undermine US bilateral alliance during Cold
War. As the end of the Cold War, US, in their concern toward this issue turn a less
finger because they got help by their alliance in the region, or near the region. This is
true due to in 1991, Japanese foreign minister, Nakayama Taro proposed a forum that
promotion of transparency and confidence building among the states in East Asia
within ASEAN-PMC (Post-Ministerial Conference). ASEAN-PMC (Post-Ministerial
Conference) are intended to review, deepen, strengthen the cooperation and ensure the
effective implementation of the respective Plans of Action to elevate cooperation in
all areas among the ASEAN and the Dialog Partners [ CITATION ase171 \l 1057 ] . Even
though this proposal from Japanese government considering as something surprising
from the Southeast Asian leaders and analysts because Japan, historically does not
concern such initiatives in world affairs.

Initiative by Nakayama Taro, was considered as the antecedent of the ARF

which established in 1994, followed by Japanese government tried to bring over
United States to support the scheme in the name of alliance. In the beginning of the
ARF’ establishment, it not detached from criticisms that is ARF has not yet engage in
preventive diplomacy nor it addressing some ravels such as Korean Peninsula, Taiwan
Straits and The Spratlys. High emphasis on SouthEast Asian issues rather than
NorthEast Asian also being criticized which build a perception that ARF too much of
an ASEAN-driven organization. Despite its limitations, ARF provides the first
multilateral security forum in Pacific Asia at that time, argued that it is better than
none. By ARF, Japan saw ARF as opportunity as supplementary, not substitute for
U.S.-Japan alliance. Therefore by the presence of ARF, Japan could divide its
diplomacy into two body, US-Japan Alliance and ARF. As the development and
 maturity of Japan’s intellectual, ARF would enhance transparency, order and stability
in Southeast Asia.

b) The Hashimoto Doctrine: Political and Security Role

In order to strengthening Japan’s political, security and cultural ties, Japanese
government used to proposed a number of bilateral and multilateral arrangements.
This is true to the fact that in January 1997, Hashimoto in his trip to Southeast Asia
proposed a summit between top leaders of Japan and the Southeast Asian region as
well the bilateral discussions between Japan and individual states. Another example is
the visitation of Shinzo Abe to India in September 2017, which Abe want to
strengthening their connectivity in cooperating with India as the cooperation is
considered as an important strategy for Japanese [ CITATION Min173 \l 1057 ] . The
results of Hashimoto’s trip was give positive result as the in the first time, the first
summit was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in December 1997.

Hashimoto’s trip to SouthEast Asia was based on three main reason, first there
were the necessity for Japan to play a more active role in the region, politically or
security role. Second is Japanese government want to maintain a balance in its foreign
relations, let alone with the US and People’s Republic of China. Third is Japan want
to give impressions to international community that Tokyo does not strengthening
their relation with US in a way of expensing others. As if Japan conduct better ties
with Southeast Asian countries, then it could being a counter-balance against China,
which at that time there is possibility of China becoming great economic and military
power in the twenty-first century.

Japan under Hashimoto administration, not only generating ideas, also tested some of
the nation’s post-World War II taboos. The perfect example of this initiative is when
law and order broke down in Phnom Penh in 1997 and in Jakarta in 1998 as Japan
sent military transport planes to Bangkok in 1997 and Singapore in 1998. This action
by Japan was based on the reason of ferrying Japanese nationals to safety. From this
action, it can be noted that first, the fact that civilian planes can be chartered to
ferrying Japanese nationals to safety and second, despite from its historical and
residual suspicions faced by Japan from Southeast Asia countries, Thailand and
 Singapore put obligations to Japan to requested permission to deploy its military
transport planes in both countries. This would indicate that perception and suspicions
towards Japan based on the burden of history were slowly decreased, as if not in
international community, at least in Southeast Asia.

c) Ideas: Japan and the Southeast Asian Environment

 Political and security was not only Japan’s concern in Southeast Asia, also Japan
has offered ideas on the environmental and global developmental models. This is true
due to the fact that Obuchi Keizo, two month before he sit for the 84th Prime Minister
of Japan offered a Japan-Led to resolve the severe environmental problems in the
Southeast Asia countries through address in Singapore. This idea came from the
issues of the indiscriminate burning of plantations -which mostly belong to capitalist
cronies of former President Suharto- and forests for crop cultivation in Indonesia in
1997 which caused some other countries in Sumatra (part of Indonesia), Singapore,
Malaysia and Brunei were covered by the smog. Therefore Obuchi proposed a
seminar in environment subject in order to establish new systems of fire-risk
management and anti-smoke measures by inviting experts from the countries that
involved as well the international organizations that work in the same field to share
experience and knowledge refers to the subject. In those occasion, Obuchi stressed on
the health and live matter and ecological system within the region. This ideas
followed by the action from Japanese government that is the dispatch of Fire Fighting
Agency to conduct operations in order to
help put out the fires. Ideas and initiatives
from Obuchi is not without the Japan’s
interest as data have shown that Japan is the
largest or if not, one of largest importer of
Tropical hardwood from virgin forests in

Southeast Asia, followed by

China.

(figure 1 & 2. wits.worldbank.org)

 (figure 3 & 4. fao.org)

d) Ideas: State-Led Development as an Alternative to American Laissez-faire

Capitalism

Marked with the collapse of Marxist regime in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union
by the end of Cold War, liberal democracy and market capitalism emerged to the reality as
some intellectuals claimed it as Stivachtis (2015) argued in “Liberal democracy, market
economy, and international conduct as standards of ‘civilization’ in contemporary
international society: The case of Russia's entry into the ‘community of civilized states’”
that the end of Cold-War meant that determinations of inter-state relations in the post-Cold
War’ international society started to followed the certain norms and standards of behavior
that associated with the West4. This bring assumption that US model of democracy, Laissez-
faire capitalism and privatization representing the appropriate model for the world
development, which is true that this seem to be implemented in some institutional which
strongly influenced by the US such as World Bank and IMF.

Even though Japan since back then being one of the US alliance, Japan was not
willing to consider US model to be implemented universally. Japan, second to US is the
largest contributor to the World Bank (figure 5), eager to conduct a study of the state-led
development of the newly industrialized economies (NIEs) such as South Korea, Taiwan and
Singapore by pressing the international organization to give Japan’s opportunity. Reason of
why Japan does not consider the US model is because, based on the The final World Bank
report on the "East Asian Economic Miracle”, it can be seen that indeed East Asia play a
pivotal role in economic development and inviting developing countries in Southeast Asia
and other regions to recognizing other model of capitalism. By this, Japan raises a sign of
confidence in taking role as leader of development and a new willingness to exercise
intellectual leadership in as leader of development and a new willingness to exercise
intellectual leadership in International organizations that could give impact toward
developing East
Asian countries.

(figure5.siteresources.worldbank.org)

IV. The Economic Crisis in Southeast Asia

The Asian economic Crisis began on July 2, 1997 when the Thai government,
which at that time was burdened with large foreign debts, decided to float the baht
after the attacks carried out by currency speculators on the country's foreign exchange
reserves. This monetary shift aims to stimulate export revenues but this strategy has
proved futile. So quickly this has the effect of transmitting to other Asian countries
because foreign investors have invested their money in the Asian Economic Miracle
countries since a decade before 1997 lost confidence in the Asian market and dumped
Asian currencies and assets as soon as possible. Thus, lead to political change in
South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. For example, Indonesia as the most
populous state in Southeast Asia, fallen into semi-anarchy, with the rupiah drop
against the U.S. dollar. hyperinflation. food shortages, antigovernment
demonstrations, looting and burning of property, the resignation of Suharto, religious
and ethnic violence, and the sudden proliferation of political panics and movements.
 The impacted Southeast Asia countries obviously will face problem on repay
their loans to Japanese banks and purchase Japanese products. Economic failure and
political instability in Southeast Asia may threaten the massive production and
distribution of goods and services from Japanese factories in the region. The
powerlessness of Indonesia and other members countries of ASEAN could damage
the credibility, capability, and effectiveness of ASEAN as an organization. Tokyo
argued that any reduction in ASEAN's capability or capacity is highly unwanted,
because the impact result will slap and demolish their own face.
V. Toward a More Balanced Japanese Approach to Southeast Asia
An obstacle in Japan's relations with Southeast Asia is Tokyo's almost
exclusively state-centered approach to the region. Tokyo effort on providing training
and assistance to Southeast Asian with the help of Council of Local Authorities for
International Relations (CLAIR) as a Japanese governmental agency to support the
international activities of local governments to strengthen international collaboration,
particularly around local development and revitalization. Also aims to provide support
to local governments in promoting tourism and regional products. Japan attempt to
enhancing the relations between the civil societies of Japan and Southeast Asia by
sending delegations to Southeast Asia to study the economic crisis, and many more
intellectual exchanges between Japan and Southeast Asian countries in order to
reduce the tension and reorganize the mindset of Southeast Asia society over Japanese
community, to eliminate the gap among society. Even at the state level, Japan and
Southeast Asia may have better ties, but unless and until civil societies in Japan and
Southeast Asia establish links, interaction will remain at the formal state level without
substantial non-hierarchical support. As Fukuda Doctrine stated "Japan committed to
peace, would never become a military power and that Japan would build up a
relationship of mutual confidence and trust with Southeast Asian countries in wide-
ranging fields, and that Japan would cooperate positively with ASEAN and its
member countries in their own efforts, as an equal partner."

Case Study

“Southeast Asia Economic Crisis and Japanese Contribution in Turbulence Era”

Since the economic crisis erupted in Southeast Asia, Existing regional cooperation,
the IMF and other international institutions were not effective in dealing with the crisis. The
US also did not pay much attention. Thus crisis-hit countries needed helps from major
powers in the region. Many of the Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian economies were
plunged into serious difficulties, triggered by currency turbulence. The crisis was the most
traumatic experience in the region since decolonization and the Cold War confrontations of
the 1950s and 1960s.

In 1997, Japan's bravery proposed an AMF to rescue and boosted East Asian
economies. However, The United States strongly opposite the idea. Fearing that an
alternative organization would erode the role of the IMF. But the real reason for the negative
U.S. response was anxious that Japan would dominate the new organization. If a hefty
rescue package were dominate in shape of yen, it could lead to the emergence of a yen bloc
in Southeast Asia. This would tear up the U.S. dollar as the de facto international currency
and continues with the influence of American hegemony in the posted cold war era.
Frustrated by the rapid appreciation of the U.S. dollar against local currencies, even
Malaysia proposed to use the regional currencies, especially the yen, as the medium of
exchange instead of relying on a rotate U.S. dollar. Even though many Japanese bureaucrats
and businessmen might believe that this is not a bad idea, Tokyo cannot openly endorse the
proposal because it would undermine a core interest of its U.S. ally that would be likely to
lead to a backlash from Washington. Due to Japan's dependence on the United States for its
security, and access to the huge American market, Japan afraid to clash with the United
States over either the yen as the regional currency.
 Japan as major powers in the region proposed and played roles in initiatives. Tokyo’s
loans and investment poured into Southeast Asian countries, boosting local economies but
also sending stock and property markets rise. Japan struggle to play a " leadership role",
Tokyo even distribute US$30 billion aid package for Southeast Asia, about one third of bank
loans to Southeast Asia o average have been by Japanese banks, and there have been other
forms of economic linkages between Japan and the region such as AMF, followed by the
Manila Framework Group (MFG), the NMI, the CMI, and last but not least special attention
will be given to ASEAN + 3. There was a hidden intention about the Japanese approach:
Tokyo offering of good offices, and the enticement of ODA, medical aid, and 600.000 metric
tons of rice (including its old stockpile of foreign rice) to countries in Southeast Asia to
support the Japan position in the region.

Japan has certain interests in supporting the recovery of Southeast Asian economies
from the crisis based on some considerations in terms of political security and economic
aspects, particularly protecting Japan’s huge FDI and substantial loans within the region.
Japan also wants its neighbouring region to always be in stable condition. Japan also has
other economic interests, especially import and export. The region is a major source for
supplying much needed natural resources to Japanese. Moreover, there has been an
assumption that if Southeast Asia economies collapse, it may impact their neighbouring
countries in the Asian region including Japan. Thus, it is most likely that Japan would not
leave these economies without help [ CITATION Sig04 \l 2057 ].
 COMPARISON ARTICLE:
CHINA AND JAPAN IN “ASEAN PLUS” MULTILATERAL ARRANGEMENTS:
RAINING ON THE OTHER GUY’S PARADE
Chien-peng Chung

I. Background
In this Chien-peng Chung book explaining how Japan is building interaction
with Southeast Asia through multilateral forums. The diversity of regionalism in East
Asia (Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia) makes Japan want to channel competition
for the sake of economic security and profitability by large powers through non-
military means and within the norms and institutions established or negotiated by the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Various multilateral regional
forums are anchored in ASEAN, there are several forums that are indeed prominent,
namely the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN Plus Three (APT), East Asia
Summit (EAS), and ASEAN Defense Ministerial Plus. Japan's involvement in this
forum has proven that Japan is able to go through the stages. Where stages such as
Japan are able to work together, tolerance in the midst of competition, and the
presence of pro forma or purposeful care.
In addition, Japan also plays a role in the Asian Monetary Fund (AMF), where
Japan proposes regional financial cooperation. In the AMF concept is a regional
institution that provides assistance to countries with short-term liquidity difficulties.
In the AMF, Japan will be the main funding provider to assist ASEAN countries
affected by the 1998 Asian crisis with conditions that are far lighter than the IMF.
However, the AMF received rejection from the US, IMF and China. ASEAN
countries that had previously supported the AMF had finally become powerless
against decisions from the US, IMF and China.

II. Comparison Between Inoguchi Takashi’s Article and Chien-peng Chung’s

Article
 Inoguchi Takashi is a Japanese academic researcher and also the president and
chairman of University of Niigata Prefecture since April 2009 [ CITATION The161 \l 1057 ].
Meanwhile Chien-peng Chung is a professor in Department of Political Science, Lingnan
University, China [ CITATION Lin18 \l 1057 ]. However, both articles from Inoguchi and
Chung do have different strength and weakness, such as:

 Inoguchi Takashi’s article has better explanation and clear mechanism, meanwhile
Chung’s article immediately jumps to the arrangement sections.

 In terms of language, Inoguchi Takashi explains with easier English to understand,

meanwhile Chung’s article has more vocabularies that are rarely found/used by non-
native English speakers.

 In terms of history and relations of Japan and Southeast Asian countries, Inoguchi
Takashi also more succeeded to recount and clarify in his article rather than Chung.

 Inoguchi Takashi’s article has lack of example in multilateral arrangements,

meanwhile Chien-peng Chung provides more example of multilateral arrangements in
his article.

 Inoguchi Takashi focuses more in the relations of Japan with Southeast Asian
countries along with Japanese roles, meanwhile Chung gives a broader explanation in
the relations of China, Japan, and Southeast Asian countries (particularly relations
among Asian countries).

As described above, both articles from Inoguchi Takashi and Chien-peng Chung have
their own strengths and weaknesses. For those who want to learn specifically about Japan,
Inoguchi Takashi’s article is well more recommended. But for those who want to learn about
Asia in general, perhaps Chien-peng Chung’s article can be a great preference too.

Conclusion

From chapter 14 of Inoguchi Takashi’s book, we can understand how Japan plays a
more active role in the Southeast Asian region where political and economic turmoil in which
Southeast Asia has not been spared. In which on his book, Tokyo's role has indeed achieved
some success in the field of non-traditional politics and security in the 1990s, although it has
not played a stronger economic leadership role behind it. In addition, Tokyo's offer of ideas
such as ARF has been accepted in the Southeast Asian region because its steps coincide with
the interests of ASEAN countries and Cambodia.

We do think that Japan has been able to play an active political role in this region
due to the consultative and non-confrontational approaches adopted to Southeast Asian
countries. In order to proof that Japan has been contributing to Southeast Asian countries, this
paper provides a case study of “Southeast Asia Economic Crisis and Japanese Contribution
in Turbulence Era” which in sum, Japan eager to consider themselves to take the leadership
role due to the fact that during the turbulence era, many of the Northeast Asian and Southeast
Asian economies were plunged into serious difficulties. Even though that there are some
opposed idea in terms of Japan’s proposal-AMF- which mostly comes from the United States,
Japan still considered their initiatives nonetheless. By doing their initiatives, Japan want to
maintaining stable condition in or near their region as well keep import and export activities
in line.
In comparing Inoguchi’s Japanese Foreign Policy Today, this paper took Chien-
peng Chung’s China and Japan in “ASEANPlus” Multilateral Arrangements: Raining on the
Other Guy’s Parade as comparison which based on the comparison, it found that both have
strengthens and weakness points as it suggested that Inoguchi specifically concerned about
the Japanese role and mechanism while Peng’s concerned about the specific case.
Nevertheless, both of this references are reliable for each utility.
References
asean.org. (2017, August 6). CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT OF THE ASEAN POST MINISTERIAL
CONFERENCE (PMC) 10+1 SESSIONS WITH THE DIALOGUE PARTNERS. Retrieved from ASEAN:
https://asean.org/storage/2017/08/ASEAN-PMC-Chairmans-Statement-FINAL1.pdf
BBC. (2016, July 12). Why is the South China Sea contentious? Retrieved from BBC News:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349
Lingnan University. (2018, August 31). Chung Chien Peng. Retrieved from Lingnan University:
https://www.ln.edu.hk/polsci/staff-chung.php
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2017, September 14). Japan-India Relations. Retrieved from
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan:
https://www.mofa.go.jp/s_sa/sw/in/page3e_000747.html
Sokolsky, R. (2001). US Objectives and Interest in Southeast Asia. In The Role of Southeast Asia in U.S.
Strategy Toward China .
The Conversation. (2016, October 24). Takashi Inoguchi. Retrieved from The Conversation:
http://theconversation.com/profiles/takashi-inoguchi-311527
witjaksono, S. (27 August 2004). Japan’s Role in Responding to the Crisis in Southeast Asia and the
East Asian Regionalism. Forum of International Development Studies, 267-289.