Reputation and Interdependence: How Japan Perceives US Resolve in Distant Regions

Abstract During the last decade, the US credibility abroad was put into question as it was accused of lacking resolve in crises. American policymakers and scholars have been worried tremendously about the reputational costs of backing down and the effect on the credibility of commitments and threats. While the debates revolve around the deterrence literature and official allies, there is surprisingly much less theoretical contribution referring to informal security partnerships. When it comes to US partners such as Ukraine and Taiwan, the existing theoretical concepts have not been adequately updated. Allies and adversaries around the world do monitor US actions in other places, especially when it comes to other alliances. What happens about the US actions towards partnerships? Do allies make reputational inferences about the show or lack of resolve when the United States fails to adequately support an informal partner? This paper examines how Japan perceived the United States resolve during the withdrawal from Syria and the Kurdish crisis of 2019 in an effort to fill the aforementioned gap. After examining secondary and primary sources findings show that Japan was much more concerned about its defender's allocation of resources and whether its interests with the United States still align rather than making reputational inferences. The findings can have severe policy implications given the US level of involvement with key partnerships and the latter's concern about showing as a reliable ally.