Scholarlink

<p>This study examines Japan’s policy adjustments between 2023 and 2025 in anticipation of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. It argues that these adjustments are best understood as Japan’s attempt to navigate the enduring alliance dilemma—the perennial tension between fear of abandonment by its senior partner and fear of entrapment in its conflicts. The shocks of Trump’s first term (2017–2021)—trade pressure, security uncertainty, and unilateralism—provided a powerful historical catalyst, sharply intensifying Tokyo’s perception of these twin risks. In response, Japan adopted a composite strategy blending proactive engagement with prudent risk hedging across high-level diplomacy, economic diversification, defense posture, and multilateral institution-building. The paper finds that Japan’s behavior resembles a dynamic risk mitigation mechanism: activated by historical experience but fundamentally shaped by the structural logic of the alliance dilemma, rather than a fully developed grand strategy. Its effectiveness remains constrained by domestic politics, U.S.–China competition, and the future trajectory of U.S. policy. The case illustrates both the possibilities and the inherent limits of hedging as a middle-power strategy under conditions of hegemonic uncertainty.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Structural pressures and catalytic shocks: Japan’s hedging strategy for “Trump 2.0” (2023–2025)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月12日

查看全文
  • Jia Meng

摘要

This study examines Japan’s policy adjustments between 2023 and 2025 in anticipation of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. It argues that these adjustments are best understood as Japan’s attempt to navigate the enduring alliance dilemma—the perennial tension between fear of abandonment by its senior partner and fear of entrapment in its conflicts. The shocks of Trump’s first term (2017–2021)—trade pressure, security uncertainty, and unilateralism—provided a powerful historical catalyst, sharply intensifying Tokyo’s perception of these twin risks. In response, Japan adopted a composite strategy blending proactive engagement with prudent risk hedging across high-level diplomacy, economic diversification, defense posture, and multilateral institution-building. The paper finds that Japan’s behavior resembles a dynamic risk mitigation mechanism: activated by historical experience but fundamentally shaped by the structural logic of the alliance dilemma, rather than a fully developed grand strategy. Its effectiveness remains constrained by domestic politics, U.S.–China competition, and the future trajectory of U.S. policy. The case illustrates both the possibilities and the inherent limits of hedging as a middle-power strategy under conditions of hegemonic uncertainty.