Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe says the proposed new security legislation would allow Japan’s military to defend its allies even when Japan isn’t under attack, work more closely with its allies, and do mor

37 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments
Login to comment

International peacekeeping isn't a great thing. It is a chore. Peacekeeping is a thankless job. With a law on the books preventing it indirectly, Japan can help more with humanitarian needs and comfort. I can see where nearby countries may reject Japanese peace-keepers for "unfortunate historical" reasons.

Defending allies is a good thing. Wording for that exception would be helpful. Peacekeeping inside the borders of allies would be allowed then, correct? Some SDF help in Baltimore would be appreciated.

Plus, think of all the uniforms with SDF that would need to be replaced! "Self-Defense Force" doesn't work in other countries.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

A military neither creates nor keeps peace.

Look at the Middle East.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

At the risk of a lot of thumbs-down clickers, as a Canadian I agree with Abe. It's time Japan got past its US-forced post-war constitution and took full part in world affairs. That does not mean, however, that I support sending armed forces where they're more likely to be killed than keep any sort of peace. This is a tough issue, so give me hell or high water.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

I've said for years that Japan should have a fully fledged army but the manner of Abe trying to ram it through when there are bigger issues is the problem.And if he were smart he'd first fix the economy and then be able to deal with his pet project because people wouldn't care so much.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

70 yrs is an inordinate amount of time .......China and Koreas need to move on. There is no reasonable expectations that Japan should be forced to offer annual apologies for historical events decades ago......England doesn't, German certainly hasn't (and doesn't), Russia doesn't, America doesn't, nor France, Italy, Egypt, etc.......

And, having a fuly functioning military IS every country's right. Why shouldn't the world's #3 largest economy do more to insure its safety AND contribute toward world peacekeeping operations.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It's utter nonsense. Japan cannot pay it's current bills, and certainly does not have the money to invest in an offensive military force. Japan is in the unique position in that America is required to defend Japan from military attack, and though Japan pays part of the cost of keeping US forces in the country, the price is a scant fraction of what it would cost to maintain their own comparable force.

Abe's focusing on changing the constitution and instituting a new military force is bizarre to the point of madness. On the long list of problems Japan must grapple with, national defence rates very low, a point which Japan should be very much thankful for. Japan is facing incredible challenges to it's demographics and economy, and there is no point in creating a strong military to defend a country which is more likely to suffer from internal collapse than foreign attacks.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

BertieWooster: A military neither creates nor keeps peace. Look at the Middle East.

Look at all the cultures extinct from insufficient military to withstand threats.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

I totally agree with it.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe says the proposed new security legislation would allow Japan’s military to defend its allies

And the majority of the experts (all of them?) who have been consulted say the proposed new legislation violates the Constitution. If getting caught up in other countries' wars is so vital for Japan's well-being and international standing ((almighty huge IF, but for the sake of argument...) then fine, do things legitimately and start by campaigning to amend the Constitution. First things first. (Scrap the 'threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes' clause, scrap the 'no involuntary servitude' (=conscription) clause, scrap the 'obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution' clause.) Abe knows that the 'necessary' changes to the Constitution have no chance of gaining a two-thirds backing in both the upper and lower houses; the politicians he needs to vote with him know that they would be being watched by the people, who are strongly opposed to any meddling with the Constitution.

If the country as a whole is opposed to amending the Constitution (and it seems that it is), then whatever Shinzo-kun says means nothing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

As long as he doesn't use these new powers to invade Korea or China, what's the harm?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As I had posted endless times the LDP would place an act calling for a referandum to revise the constitution if they knew that act would be initiated **BUT*** it requires 2/3 in BOTH houses to make it materialize they had about abandoned that idea. The minority parties doesn't really care as long as they can OPPOSE anything that comes out of LDP. Whether the referandum is accepted or not by the citizens is a compelete different matter at the moment since the act will not pass.

The comments I hear from the people who are assembling at the rallies are not always opposed to collective defense but only opposed of the government circunventing the constitution. Abe had always been vocal that he would propose a referandum to make it official if the minority parties are willing to listen to direct judgement of the citizen they consistantly block.

Either ways this should by a bipartisan act to entrust judgement directly by the people and not something that a handful of politicians decide.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe says the proposed new security legislation would allow Japan’s military to defend its allies even when Japan isn’t under attack

Who are the allies Japan's military wants to defend? South Korea? (LOL) Taiwan? (I do believe Japanese love the people in Taiwan but their love is not big enough to start a war with a country like, China). Philippines? (Not even sure if it is an ally to start with) Countries outside Asia? (You go all the way to the other side of earth to defend them?) Enlighten me, please!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So Japan goes for 70 odd years without any direct involvement in international conflicts and no country has reason to attack Japan. Why become aggressive now? Doesn't that invite animosity? Would any group have attacked the US on 9.11 if that country had not been constantly waging battles around the globe? Very unlikely.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Abe actually means the United States. When the U.S.starts another war Japan will be there to donate our lives.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan needs to follow its constitution! If the govt proposes changes they need to PASS, then they tinker with what its military can/cant do.

Right now we might as well be in China or NKorea, this is being shoved down Japans throat by a dictatorial govt.

That said Japan has had 70yrs to deal with its ghosts, amend its constitution but has done NOTHING but keep its head in the sand. Meanwhile the US has been trying to get Japan to stand on its own two feet like an adult, but Japan refused until abe the dictator came along(a 2nd time!) & here we are a mess

And Japan neighbours wont be happy one bit, again a mess ALL MIJ!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How disgusting that if our ships are attacked in the Sea of Japan or the East China Sea, the Japanese will just stand by and watch, while if they are attacked we must defend them.

How shameless, and shameful, for Japan!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How disgusting that if our ships are attacked in the Sea of Japan or the East China Sea

Or the Gulf of Tonkin even.

Ever hear of a false flag? They are 100% right to be worried about getting sucked into another one of the US government/MSM false flag lies. Not recognizing this is just dumb.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sangetsu03, Your comment is interesting (Japan is in the unique position in that America is required to defend Japan from military attack) Why should The US protect Japan when Japan will watch unconcerned when an American ship is attacked near Japan? This is where those shouting 'Peace' dont get it. Peace isn't free. And don't expect that because you say 'peace', irresponsible nations will not threaten you. Look at what common Chinese fishing boats do to the J coast guards.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@change Japan is already a top tend spender when it comes to the military. I doubt their reactions to fishing boats is a matter of military deficiency. It's more a policy tightrope walk. I agree that, as Sangetsu wrote, Japan is facing an economic nightmare scenario. The future is smaller and less powerful. Abe has taken hi eye off the ball for this business. The future is bearing down.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Who are the allies Japan's military wants to defend? South Korea? (LOL) Taiwan? (I do believe Japanese love the people in Taiwan but their love is not big enough to start a war with a country like, China). Philippines? (Not even sure if it is an ally to start with) Countries outside Asia? (You go all the way to the other side of earth to defend them?) Enlighten me, please!

This comment pretty much sums up the knowledge of people who are against it or have reservation about it as a result of rhetoric shouted by the opposition. You can also place blame on the media including JT with the above quotes over simplifying the actual intent of the security bill.

What this security bill does is

"if an armed attack against a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan occurs and as a result threatens Japan’s survival and poses a clear danger to fundamentally overturn people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and when there is no other appropriate means available to repel the attack and ensure Japan’s survival and protect its people, use of force to the minimum extent necessary should be permitted"

It's a no brainer. Of course, Japan should use force under those circumstances. Unfortunately as it stands, the current laws in place wouldn't even allow Japan to do such obvious tasks.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Nigelboy:

When a war which has nothing to do with Japan starts and USA asks Japan to help out, will you be the first to offer your services? UK and other countries were dragged into this nonsense in Iraq which, by the way, had no connection to the Taliban and had no WMD. The results: soldiers and innocent children dead - and a big vacuum filled by ISIS, leading to more deaths and refugees. Let those who were for this legislation have priority in going to war.

And please, stop all this Japan/LDP PR.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

When a war which has nothing to do with Japan starts and USA asks Japan to help out

That would be not applicable under the current bill. Why am I not surprised that you haven't read the bill. This is the exact rhetoric I'm talking about in a related article.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"if an armed attack against a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan occurs and as a result threatens Japan’s survival and poses a clear danger to fundamentally overturn people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and when there is no other appropriate means available to repel the attack and ensure Japan’s survival and protect its people, use of force to the minimum extent necessary should be permitted"

Name the country or countries then? Then I rest my argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Name the country or countries then? Then I rest my argument.

USA

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The issue is not really the law itself. It's how the law is being rammed through the Diet. There is a strong argument it violates the Constitution, it is incredibly unpopular, and the motivation to pass it quickly is not that we have some pressing need for it right now, but because Abe and his party are afraid the holiday will lead to more protests. This is not democracy.

Every time Abe is challenged on this law, he claims the public doesn't understand it. Yet he has made no effort to explain what it is that the public doesn't understand. I hear the government claiming Japan will never use the law to attack a country which is not a threat to Japan, and yet when news reports cover the law, that is identified explicitly as its purpose. Abe has not to my knowledge named a single upcoming threat which makes this law necessary. Its hard to look at this chain of events and come to any other conclusion but that the PM holds his citizenry in utter contempt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USA

I am no military expert but I do understand even with the advance of modern technologies geograchic factors still play a big part in wars. The parts of USA that are most vulnerable to attacks are Alaska (from Russia), Hawaii (from some country with a super navy power in which I cannot think of anyone but the USA), Guam (I think the latest missles developed by China can rearch it but I do think they are not thoroughly tested). Going to war with Russia or China will bring hell to Japan instead of protecting the lives of its people. Japan is entited to increasing its spending in building up a better JSD. I just see no point in pressing this bill.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is not what Abe claims he wants to do, its what he will do.

He is a small little man who wants to put China in its place and will end up needlessly provoking them at some point. Get ready for a draft as well, youth of Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

how can anyone in their right mind think this is a good idea?

stay home, watch over your own and fight to holy hell if anyone tries anything with you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

JDF troops will probably just become 2nd class US troops, fighting un-winible wars.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Abe and all his militarism have to be made gone! The US is broke and just wants to use Japan as a mercenary army to fight its numerous unending wars.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

'Abe and all his militarism have to be made gone! The US is broke and just wants to use Japan as a mercenary army to fight its numerous unending wars.'

The US is also running out of allies who'll be prepared to join in with its unending and disastrous wars of choice. The Iraq business was an utter debacle and the final straw unless viewed through the swivel-eyes of the US right and weapons manufacturers. Japan would be a very loyal lapdog indeed.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How disgusting that if our ships are attacked in the Sea of Japan or the East China Sea, the Japanese will just stand by and watch, while if they are attacked we must defend them.

Yep, the Japanese should stand by and watch, after all, America's navy is about the same size as the rest of the world's navies combined, and is far better suited to defending American ships than Japan's navy is. There are American naval ships in Asian waters at all times, without exception, and they cover a far greater area that Japan is capable of covering. And everything which Japan's military sees is simultaneously seen by the US military.

'Abe and all his militarism have to be made gone! The US is broke and just wants to use Japan as a mercenary army to fight its numerous unending wars.'

The US is far from broke, it is the world's richest country in agriculture and resources. America doesn't need Japan's help to fight in any wars. Abe doesn't want to support the US in any wars, what Abe wants is to be able to give companies like Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Hitachi, etc huge military contracts. Of course these contracts, like defence contracts in any country, are rife with overruns, delays, graft, and corruption, and enrich Japan Inc and the LDP at the cost of everyone else. Unlike the US, Japan truly is broke, it has no resources of any kind, and it's reliance on domestic growth no longer exists as the population continues to collapse, and it cannot depend on exports, as most of Asia can produce quality goods at a lower cost.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There are American naval ships in Asian waters at all times, without exception

Really? I've heard that there is none there now.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Another reason for Abe's actions is that many Japanese no longer believe that the US can actually protect Japan. They look at the mess the US has made in the middle east, which has lasted 4 times as long as WWII, and the US still hasn't had a victory. Then there was Viet Nam, etc etc etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Really? I've heard that there is none there now.

In the news some time back was a report about three American Ohio-class nuclear submarines surfacing simultaneously in Asia. Armed with 96 Tomahawk missiles, just one of these submarines could send China back to the stone age. Having three in Asia at the same time was a rather impressive show of force. It is not the ships you see or know about which are the greatest threat.

Japan does not have the ability, financial or technical, to creat even one comparable submarine, let alone a fleet of them. And these submarines are part of Japan's defences already.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

just one of these submarines could send China back to the stone age

like little boys comparing the size of their dingalings. Will some people ever grow up?

(with apologies to Chuck Berry)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So they passed a lot letting Japan assist in wars.

What happen's if it actually comes to pass?

How long'll Abe keep his seat then?

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