序章　近現代の日本外交と強制力

When considering the relationship between Japanese foreign policy and the military in modern times, it is not surprisingly that the political change before and after World War II becomes an issue. There are many individual issues to consider in each prewar and postwar period and it is not possible to touch upon all of them. However, some issues may become clear when considered in the prewar and postwar pretext, especially when focusing on military organization. Therefore, I would like to refer to issues that were problematic both in the prewar and postwar periods at this time.<br>First, in prewar Japan leading up to involvement in World War II, the influence of the military was undeniably strong. However, military action did not have an unified objective and plan, but acted under the bureaucratic organization with its excessively opportunistic behavior. Moreover, the important decision to go to war against the U. S. and Britain itself can hardly be said to be based on reasonable political judgment. Possible causes for this include the decentralized characteristics of Meiji State, lack of leadership, and sectionalism of Japanese bureaucracy. The problem is that such issues which existed in the Meiji State system are not just a thing of the past, but can be seen in Japanese politics today characterized as “bureaucrat-cabinet system.”<br>Civilian control of postwar Japan is actually “Bureaucrat Control,” from the standpoint that the civil-military relations in Japan must be recognized as civil-bureaucrat-military relations. Consequently, a viewpoint that considers the relationship between politicians, bureaucrats, and the military organization, is needed when studying government and military in Japan. As such, understanding the function and issues of the bureaucracy, and the relationship between the government and the bureaucratic organization in Japan, from a historical viewpoint is considered to be important. To do so, the issue of strategy must also be considered.<br>The issue of strategy has inextricable importance in the consideration of foreign policy. So, how can the relationship between strategy and the military in Japanese foreign policy be viewed? Strategy can usually be divided into “national strategy (major strategy)” which pursues the national objective in a broad sense, and under that “military strategy” which focuses on ensuring security. That which is the most basic is “national strategy (major strategy).” In Japan, a clearly established “national strategy” through the prewar and postwar periods did not and does not exist. That Japan does not have a national strategy has become the backdrop of criticism. Moreover, in both the prewar and postwar periods, military strategies alone have been planned without any clear national strategy.<br>I would like to mention about “Coercive Power” which has been raised as a special topic at this time. The word “military force” has been frequently used in this article, and the relationship between military force and foreign policy has been fundamental in this topic. However, currently, the use of military organization not only for state will, but also in the field of peace keeping, has increased. Furthermore, the use of a military organization, not only from the aspect of simply having hard power, but also focusing on its function as a self-absorbed organization has also increase. Therefore, rather than just simply using “military force,” the current issues are assumed to be more widely encompass the use of the word “coercive power.”