FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Japan Should Devote Itself to Peace, Not Remilitarization

Over the objections of the majority of Japanese citizens, and despite bitter protests and strong resistance from opposition parties, Japan’s legislature passed new security laws which will permit Japan’s military to participate in conflicts overseas. A victory for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, the legislation flies in the face of Japan’s pacifist constitution and will bind the country to a dangerous and unnecessary path toward remilitarization.

Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, adopted in 1947 during the Allied occupation, states “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes” and that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.” Abe and proponents of the legislation argue that the new laws have sufficient safeguards to limit Japanese military engagements, such as only allowing military action to defend allies, only when all peaceful options have been attempted, and only if not undertaking military action would threaten “the lives and survival of the Japanese nation.”

However, these new laws clearly contradict Article 9, which explicitly bans “the threat or use of force.” There are no exceptions granted in Article 9. Indeed, multiple surveys have found that more than 90 percent of constitutional experts believe Abe’s new laws violate morrisliesJapan’s constitution. Furthermore, the restrictions are meaningless if Japanese leaders simply choose to interpret any military action as a last resort and as necessary to protect Japan. Such instances are common in world affairs: George W. Bush frequently claimed invading Iraq in 2003 was his “last option” and necessary for world security.

Abe claims the laws are necessary to attend to potential threats from China and North Korea. If anything, the new laws will only alienate Japan’s neighbors and increase the potential for conflict. There is still widespread resentment for Japan’s actions during World War II in countries such as China, North Korea, and South Korea. Abe in particular has incensed Japan’s neighbors by refusing to offer his own apology for World War II on the 70th anniversary of end of that war, as well as for visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, where Japanese war criminals are honored. Clearly, antagonizing one’s neighbors with a greater military role is not a wise move when they are still angry.

While the “rise of China” certainly presents challenges for the region, there is no evidence China wants to attack Japan. In fact, both China and Japan benefit more from mutual peaceful relations through trade and investment than they would from conflict. China and Japan are the world’s second and third largest economies by nominal GDP, respectively, and both are significant trading partners with each other. The territorial dispute between the two countries over a group of islands in the East China Sea, referred to as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, carries the potential for conflict. However, precisely what is not needed in this instance is increased militarization from either side. Japan’s new security laws create a more hostile environment in which both China and Japan will now have to navigate, heightening distrust and creating a more dangerous climate. The territorial dispute between the countries could now become more volatile as a result.

Potential threats to Japan from North Korea are even less of a problem. First, North Korea is primarily concerned about its adversarial relationships with South Korea and the United States. Japan is a secondary concern for North Korea. Second, North Korea poses no realistic threat to Japan. Despite bellicose rhetoric from North Korean leaders, North Korea knows it could not win a war with South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Its nuclear program is cause for concern, but there is little chance North Korea would use them to strike Japan, as North Korea would be instantly obliterated by the United States.

Abe’s legislation has been welcomed by the United States, which would like to see its Asian allies increase their military role in the face of U.S. budget constraints. In addition, there is the seeming contradiction between Japan’s pacifist constitution and the reality on the ground today: despite Article 9’s prohibition on maintaining “land, sea, and air forces,” Japan has its own military, the Self-Defense Forces, and Japan is subject to several U.S. military bases and more than 40,000 U.S. military personnel stationed there.

However, the fact that there are contradictions between the Article 9 ideals and Japanese policies today does not mean that the ideals should be changed, but rather the policies. Rather than choosing between continued U.S. military “protection” and independent remilitarization, Japan can make a third choice: become a model for the world to emulate by fully committing itself to peace. Japan should vigorously defend Article 9 by scaling back its military, follow the lead of protestors in Okinawa by shutting down U.S. military bases and ending the U.S.-Japan “alliance,” and reallocate its increasing military budget towards social needs. These moves would not only inspire the world, but make the region much safer by fostering better relations with Japan’s neighbors. They would also remove any pretext for provocative actions by China or North Korea.

After Japan’s defeat in World War II, it became one of the world’s most peaceful countries, and remains so today. It would be a tragedy for Japan to reverse course and undo all the progress that has been made.

More articles by:

Brett S. Morris is a freelance writer and journalist who specializes in the intersection of US foreign policy and East and Southeast Asian affairs. He is the author of 21 Lies They Tell You About American Foreign Policy. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail