Since the end of the Second World War, Japan has been one of a tiny handful of countries that have surrendered the right to wage war.

Article 9 of its constitution proclaims, “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes... The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognised.”

But those who embrace pacifism are apt to find themselves beset by others who are happy to brandish fire and the sword. And Japan shares an extraordinarily dangerous geopolitical neighbourhood with totalitarian states such as China, North Korea, and Russia.

In 2007, the then-Prime Minister Shinzō Abe called for a “bold review” of Article 9 and Japan’s place in the international system. Japan’s current Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, appears to be following Abe Doctrine.

He has proclaimed that globalisation and economic interdependence have bolstered authoritarian regimes, and left democracies hostage to them. Kishida has, therefore, called on free societies to create a “new world order” to reduce our exposure to, and dependence on, anti-democratic states and non-state actors.

What would such a “new world order” look like? Is it already too late for the world’s democracies to sever the tentacles of totalitarian states? And would the efforts to create such an order make the world safer or hasten the very conflicts it seeks to avoid?

We are delighted to have Professor Jacob Kovalio with us today, to discuss these and other questions.

Prof Kovalio serves at Carleton University in Ottawa. He is a researcher, writer, and teacher of Modern Japanese Political and Diplomatic History and its broader links to Asia and the world. He worked in Japan for over six years, and travelled and lectured throughout East Asia. He was honoured with the Foreign Minister of Japan’s Commendation and with the Order of the Rising Sun Gold Rays with Rosettes.

⁂

Alex will moderate the written discussion thread, and will put a representative cross-section of questions and comments to our guest. Please be sure to contribute your thoughts to the thread that accompanies this Talk. Alex leads some of Reddit’s largest communities, including r/WorldNews, r/News, r/Politics, and r/Geopolitics. His handle at Reddit is u/dieyoufool3.

Willian will support the Talk. He leads a range of Reddit communities, including r/WorldNews, r/AskLatinAmerica, r/Brazil, and r/Europe. He tweets at @Tetizera.

I, Akaash, will moderate the spoken conversation. Outside Reddit, I serve as Ambassador-at-Large for the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, and as a Senior Fellow at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. I tweet at @AkaashMaharaj and I am on Instagram at @AkaashMaharaj.

⁂

Prof Jacob Kovalio

• Web site: freeandopenindopacific.net

Feel free to leave any question you have to our guests here and I'll be sure to ask them in the second half of our show!

Why use such expansive language as "New World Order" when the main aspect wanting to be addressed would be met by an indo-pacific trade deal combined with looping Japan into the Five Eyes agreement and/or a trilateral defensive pact with Australia/USA?

Would a trade deal and a defensive agreement constitute a "New World Order?"

Further, the "New World Order" term has history in the USA, with George Bush Sr. attempting to use that terminology, and costing him his re-election.

Because there's an order to the world. Changing it requires a new world order. This is a common turn of phrase and no one should stop using it just for the sake of redneck moron talking points from 30 years ago.

There is MUCH more history to the term than just Bush Sr.

Further, there's even a widely popular conspiracy theory that uses the term.

​

Just request an expansion of NATO into the indo-pacific and/or a trade alliance of democratic nations.

Just asked!

Thank you!

Sounds like wanting to use the expansive language due to desiring a larger change rather than a smaller one. At least, that's what I got out of the answer. Something close to the UN security committee, but limited to democratic nations.

Or perhaps Bretton Woods 2.0.

Democracy verses totalitarian isn't new. The last time sides were taken it was called World War 2. If Democracy verses totalitarian takes place again. It Will appropriately be named World War 3. What the world needs is for governments to more closely match the will of the people, this includes both democracy and totalitarian situations.

We need a world order where every country has access to wealth & democracy. Where wars of aggression are a thing of the past.

The US, the EU & other Allies from WW2 have fueled many conflicts around the world while relying on cheap goods from poorer countries. This has fueled instability & resentment. Now, BRICS has formed to counter the petro dollar & we are seeing fascists flex their power in Russia, India, etc.

The world is in a very precarious state, & we can't move forward unless the Allies abandon neoliberal economics & neoconservative foreign policy. Instead, we must embrace social democracy & a more friendly foreign policy (while backing up Ukraine in their fight against Putin).

Hmm

you

Probably we will need a mechanism to reubicate peacephically countries....