Japan's pacifism fades, but most Japanese aren't happy about it


Nearly to the day of the first successful test of a nuclear bomb in 1945, and just a few weeks from the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pushed through legislation to give his country's military the power to strike offensively for the first time since the war.

It is hard to understate the potential impact of this development.

Domestically, Abe is putting his own job on the line. Voters oppose the new legislation roughly two to one, opposition parties walked out of the vote in protest and the government's support ratings fell to around 40%. The lower house of parliament's decision to approve the legislation set off the largest demonstrations in Japan since the Fukushima nuclear accident; a crowd of 100,000 people gathered with signs reading "Abe, Quit."

Abe took this action knowing that 55 years ago similar protests forced his grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, out of the prime minister's job after he rammed a revised U.S.-Japan security pact, seen as too militaristic, through parliament.

Abe's move is also darkly symbolic both in and outside Japan.

Most Japanese remain proud of Article 9 in their postwar constitution, through which they became the only nation in modern times to renounce the use of offensive force. Abe's walking his country away from this achievement represents the end of the last great ideal to emerge from World War Two, and an almost contemptuous disregard for his citizens' view of themselves.

In addition, as China contests islands in the seas south of Japan, North Korea rattles its nuclear saber and Japan's Southeast Asian neighbors remember their own World War Two experiences, the new legislation throws additional fuel onto the coals of East Asian tensions. China's foreign ministry said the move called into question Japan's postwar commitment to "the path of peaceful development" and urged Abe to learn the lessons of history.

Chief among the practical concerns in Japan is that Abe's legislative end-run around the constitution will block case-by-case debate on the use of the nation's military.

For example, Japan's only post-World War Two deployment of troops abroad, a single battalion to Iraq in 2004 in support of U.S. reconstruction efforts, met intense scrutiny to the point where the government published images of the small arms the soldiers carried, which were to be used only for self-protection, to assure the public of its non-martial intent. A separate, one-time-only law, passed in the wake of 9/11 to allow Japan to refuel American ships in the Indian Ocean, restricted Japanese vessels to "areas where no combat is taking place."

The new legislation does not immediately become law. The measure moves to the upper house, where no vote is expected to be taken. After 60 days, the measure will automatically return to the lower chamber, where Abe's coalition holds a comfortable majority. In theory, the decision could then be challenged in the supreme court as being in violation of Article 9, though the court historically rules in favor of the government.

That addresses the "what." The "why" remains much harder to discern.

Abe says the legislation is in response to threats facing Japan, including from China. He also cites the murder of two Japanese hostages by Islamic State, suggesting his military could have rescued them. While these views play well to the ultranationalists who help fund the prime minister's party, Abe's critics see them as blather; American security guarantees protect Japan without a (Japanese, at least) thumb in the eye of its neighbors. And even if Japan had the special-forces capability to pull off a hostage rescue, such an action seems well within the intent of Article 9.

Abe also says that the new legislation would allow Japan to help defend the United States, something his critics feel could lead to entanglements in U.S. aggression against China, or even in the Middle East. Abe's own arguments about defending Japan aside, one real factor is the United States pushing the leader into a more aggressive stance under the banner of "collective defense."

However, the real "why" likely rests deep inside Abe. He has long held a hyper-conservative view of World War Two. He stated, for example, that Japanese leaders charged with war crimes were "not war criminals under the laws of Japan." American occupiers arrested Abe's grandfather, Kishi, as a war criminal for his role in the war. Some say Kishi, who helped raise Abe, pressed into his grandson his own dream of remaking Japan as a military power and throwing off the postwar constitution.

Abe is a politician who found himself powerful enough to act on his own ideas, apart from what many feel are his nation's legitimate security needs. Abe is apparently willing to pick a fight, risk his job and anger his country, all in service to his own ideology.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Does Van Buren even know anything about Japan? Typical of career functionaries in the State Department, it looks like he was posted all over the place without necessarily having any background in where he was serving or what he was doing. The last thing State wants is someone who actually knows the country they are working in and/or someone who may be disposed to the culture.

Entering State is like entering a Japanese company as a "freshman" - Oh, you have a background in electrical engineering? You'll start in marketing. Oh, you speak Spanish? Off to Indonesia for you!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"Voters oppose the new legislation roughly two to one" - article

Is this the New Democracy of Japan?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Reality check, this is the 21st century.

Japan has always had the might of the USA to protect them, that might is waning;

As DeGaulle observed Would the USA really go to Nuclear option if we were threatened? ;

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, consequences; Ukraine was guaranteed defense, really?

Why should the USA play the buffer for Japan , our guys die for you all, without some reciprocal tit for tat;

China is one to accuse Japan of threatening the regional peace,, a case of the bully calling the kettle yellow;

That number 9, like #9 episode of THE PRISONER was the result of Emperor MacArthur imposition (with good cause). Surely, the Japanese have evolved beyond the barbarity exhibited in the Pacific War. Denial of that places you in the position of asserting that the Japanese have and always will be barbarian, needing a halter to inhibit their inborn traits.

One would wish the world has substantially changed since 1945, IT HASN'T. And, only a fool can see Nippon with its declining population pulling another Co prosperity Empire Plan. It is plainly obvious that the current crop probably wouldn't understand the concept of Yamato Spirit let alone have the ability to live up to it.

The above simplifications are meant for the naysayers. The intrinsic arguments for Nippon becoming its own nationhood with a reliable and reputable force to be reckoned with are to be sought elsewhere.

So, to those who will blather negations, I will respond with yeah, yeah, now learn to live in the REAL WORLD. But, honestly, I do wish it were different.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

With China throwing its weight around, a strong Japan is necessary.

Compulsory military service might toughen up a few of these grass eaters and might be exactly what Japan needs.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Pacifism equals naivism?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

shame- i thought this was going to be an insightful article on the Japanese people and their thoughts of Article 9, it;s legacy and why the change is taking place. Instead it is another op-ed on Abe.

guess that's why a westerner wrote the article

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites