I hope the day never comes that Japan hears this threat leveled against it. Nevertheless, the day may very well come. Or perhaps it will be, 'They love Hello Kitty, We love Kim." But being rich and militarily weak is a bad combination, especially when a country so close to neighbors like North Korea and China. The Japanese have to choose to bear the indignity of American army bases or bring their military up to the same level as their economy. Only one thing really stands in the way. Article 9 of their constitution. It seemed as if a change was imminent, but that may not be so. In Asia Times:
The current constitution, drafted over a few days in 1946 by a hodgepodge of young legal and clerical workers under the direction of the US occupation's General Douglas MacArthur, famously prohibits Japan in the first clause of Article 9 from resorting to war as a means of resolving international disputes, and states in its second clause that armed forces will never be maintained.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) says it hopes to re-open discussions on the referendum bill in an extraordinary session of parliament this autumn, as part of a drive to finalize a draft constitution by November. But the timetable is looking increasingly unrealistic due to the sheer variety of opinion on what the scope of Article 9 should be.
"The study reports released by the upper and lower houses don't set out a basic direction for reform," says Masahito Tadano, a professor of constitutional law at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo. "Even if a consensus can be reached centering on Article 9, I think it may end up being a comparatively minor amendment."
It's my humble opinion that there's a kind of inverted pride that some Japanese take in 'renouncing war.' An elegant Japanese gentleman I know who is old enough to remember the war does not stint in excusing or dismissing Japan's wartime crimes. Sometimes the old 'younger brother helping the decadent older brother' argument surfaces--that is, 'East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere tough love'. But since Japan no longer competes with countries like the US--or even North Korea--militarily, (keeping the US nuclear umbrella handy in case South Korea's 'Sunshine Policy' darkens), there must still be a way to stay number one. So the same man who maintains that the Nanjing Massacre is nothing but Chinese ingratitude boasts how Japan is leading the way in peace.
Fine. Ego will out, whether as jingoism or in the 'my country, wrong no matter what' tribal mentality of the left. But the even the most superficial--but honest--survey of history will tell you that Gold blesses the nation that's got its own--military, that is. And if they're not lucky enough to have that, they'd better make damn sure that their neighbors are democratic ones, like the one to Canada's south.
Also, we've seen how well the UN functions to save lives and curb brutal oppressors. If there's any real chance for relative peace and prosperity in the forseeable future, it will have to be ushered in strong, democratic nations willing to face down fascists. If so, Japan should take its place as a free nation where rule of law applies. How do the Japanese people feel about this?
"Japan has taken on a lot of new obligations, not only to defend its own territory, but also to help contribute to world peace," says Taro Kono, a deputy secretary general of the LDP. He points to efforts in Iraq, the more frequent need to douse security brushfires around the world since the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of non-state threats such as al-Qaeda. "We need to think about how Japan can respond to this new world, to these new concepts."
Polls show that pro-revision sentiment is strongest among those in their 30s and 40s and weakest among the elderly. While the post-September 11 political atmosphere and anxiety over North Korea's nuclear program has created the momentum for limited changes to Article 9 among ordinary Japanese, international pressure is mounting from some quarters for Japan to do even more to free up its military resources for use in regional hot spots.
The US has long advocated that Japan make its constitution more contemporary and has quietly been pushing for changes to Article 9 so Tokyo no longer views it as a prohibition to the UN requirement that all members contribute to collective security. Last week, Washington reportedly balked in negotiations over providing missile-launch data directly from early-warning satellites to Tokyo due to Japan's position that it would only be able to use the missile system to defend its own territory but not that of another country.
The Japanese public is against Tokyo having an explicit right to engage in such collective defense actions as many fear such a right would become an obligation that could drag the country into an unwanted war if China were to attack Taiwan.
"The role of Article 9 in legally circumscribing SDF actions and dispatches overseas is very important ...because it allows the government to decide such matters on a case by case basis," says Tadano, the law professor.
Others are worried that the more confrontational military stance of the George W Bush administration will come back to haunt Japan. "What would Japan's position be under collective defense if the US launched a pre-emptive strike?" asks Kiyomi Tsujimoto, a non-profit organization coordinator. She says now is a poor time for any controversial changes concerning Japan's military given the rise of anti-Japan sentiment in China.
"We will have to take part in America's wars. I can't agree [that Japan should have the right to collective defense] - diplomacy is a better option."
Diplomacy is a better option among states that are equally reasonable. And for diplomats, true reasonablity lies in the capacity to tell which states it is possible to negotiate with and which ones cannot. The most obvious standard is in how a nation treats its own citizens. And Japan has has at least two close neighbors which do not measure up.
Comments