By: Charles Ayers
Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, won an important legislative victory this Thursday when his party passed a packet of bill that will fundamentally reform Japan’s military apparatus. Ever since the devastating conclusion of the Second World War, Japan has been an avowed pacifist nation. While the government has maintained a military force, its sole mission has always been self-defense. The passed legislation will broaden the aim of Japan’s military so that it can respond to attacks on allies, specifically the United States. Abe’s moves have generated massive protests and the stanch resistance of opposition lawmakers, many of whom walked out of Parliament during the controversial vote. While only the lower house passed the bills, the upper house is firmly in the control of Abe’s party, the LDP. However, the upper house is committed to discuss the changes for 60 days, keeping the issue in the national spotlight.
Many of the bills’ opponents claim that the new changes are unconstitutional. Article Nine of the post-war Japanese Constitution specifically states “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes” and that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained”. These sections have always been open to different interpretations. For example, many Japanese believe that the Self Defense Forces are a legitimate institution, despite being a de facto military force; indeed, the SDF boosts one of the most advanced maritime fleets in the region. However, the SDF has always been envisioned as a defense force only, with the limited mission of defending the Japanese mainland.
The new military guidelines grant Japanese policymakers the right to deploy military forces overseas under very specific conditions. Namely, Japan or a close ally must come under attack, the attack must threaten Japan’s survival, there must exist no other means of repelling the aggression, and the military’s use of force must be restricted to the absolute minimum. These changes are obviously intended as a response to China’s military rise and North Korean aggression. Under the new framework, Japan could aid US troops or ships that come under attack in the East Asian region. As such, American policymakers are largely in favor of the revisions. Ironically, they view the post-WW2, US imposed ban on military action as an archaic impediment to effective security collaboration. Recent proposed alterations to the US-Japanese “defense guidelines” would allow the Japanese military to assist US troops even these forces were not actively involved in the defense of Japan.
Abe has always desired to reinterpret or amend the post-war constitution and transform Japan into a “normal country” that plays a larger international role; his grandfather is famous for approving a 1960s Japanese-US security treaty over widespread opposition. However, his vision has produced a bitter backlash among the Japanese people, who according to numerous polls oppose the bills at about a two to one ratio. Support for the government has plummeted to forty percent, and a crowd of protesters possibly 100,000 strong marched around Parliament as the bills were debated. Additionally, many Japanese legal experts have come forward in opposition to the changes, claiming that they are unconstitutional. This has led many to assume that the new laws will be challenged in the courts.
The proposed changes might bring further strain to the already tense relationship between Japan and China, a country with a long history of grievances over Japanese WW2 war crimes. Chinese policymakers have already responded negatively, with China’s foreign minister urging Japan to “stick to the path of peaceful development”. The government-controlled press has been even more hostile, accusing Japan of aiding the US in balancing against China’s rising power and returning to “militarism”. Whether these statements will poison the recent glimmerings of cooperation between China and Abe’s government remains to be seen.