After decades of living in the shadows of increasingly belligerent neighbours, Japan is on the cusp of reviewing its pacifist policy to pave the way for its troops to taste battle abroad if necessary and be in a position to better defend its country’s territorial integrity. If it succeeds, it is likely to further heighten tension in a region already on edge due to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s war-mongering disposition and China’s threats of expansionism.
Since his emergence as Japan’s leading political figure, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has never hidden his desire to effect the first change in Japan’s 70-year-old post-World War II constitution. What is, however, significant this time is the fact that he has moved from merely broaching the matter to coming up with a time frame. Making the date public for the first time, Abe was quoted recently as saying, “I strongly hope to make 2020 the year in which a new constitution takes effect.”
Of particular interest to Abe is Article 9 of the constitution, under which Japan renounces the right to embark on war as a means of settling international disputes and prohibits the maintenance of the military. This hugely divisive provision of the constitution, the prime minister and his supporters argue, was an imposition of the United States when the Americans occupied Japan and supervised the drafting of the constitution in 1947. Douglas MacArthur, who commanded the Allied Forces in the Pacific, is believed to have influenced the insertion of the article to discourage Japan from returning to the path of war.
While Abe may want to dismiss Article 9 as a relic of imperialism, which should no longer stand, many Japanese who had grown up to hear of – or those who even saw – the mass destruction inflicted by the “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”, codenames for the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have resisted any attempt to tinker with the document. Opposing views believe that any review of the constitution would be tantamount to returning Japan to its militarist past that climaxed in the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack of US naval base by hundreds of its war planes. The US reaction formally launched it into World War II.
Either way, this is a dilemma that has to be resolved. Although Abe now controls the needed majority in the parliament to push for the review, he still has to contend with a highly sceptical public, which has the final say through a referendum. He has tried to explain his intention: to ensure that the country, which currently operates Self-Defence Forces in place of the army, should be able to go beyond just defending itself against foreign aggression. Right now, Japan can only fight off enemy attacks, but cannot go after attackers.
In the light of recent happenings in the region, public opinion which used to be overwhelmingly iron cast against the review is gradually melting. This is not unconnected with the aggressive and single-minded pursuit of armament by North Korea, and China’s huge appetite for land-grabbing in the China Sea. In March, North Korea launched four ballistic missiles, three of which landed in Japanese waters. As expected, Japan lodged a protest. Just last Sunday, Pyongyang launched yet another in a series of missile tests, flaunting increasing advances in its development of an intercontinental ballistic missile mounted with a nuclear warhead targeted at mainland US.
Reports by Reuters on the recent launch said North Korea’s missiles required a flight of 8,000 metres or more with technology to ensure a warhead’s stable re-entry into the atmosphere. Quoting an aerospace expert, John Schilling, the report said the last launch “represents a level of performance never before seen from a North Korean missile.”
Abe has also had cause to express fears that Japan could become a target for North Korean missiles carrying warheads filled with sarin gas. These fears are well-founded, regardless of Japan’s military pact with the US. This is why Abe also feels that the status of the SDF should be clearly defined so as to avoid any conflict with the pacifist nature of the constitution.
Despite limitations imposed by the constitution, Japan, a former military power once controlling an expanse of territory stretching as far as Russia, China, India and parts of the Pacific Ocean, under an imperial authority, still remains a formidable fighting force. A recent CNN report credits Japan with one of the strongest militaries in the world. Quoting an expert, John Kuehn, a professor of military history at the US Army Command and General Staff College, the report said, “Pilot for pilot, ship for ship, Japan can stand toe to toe with anybody.”
Considering what is known of Japan today, a review of the constitution will only legitimise the existence of its already well-trained and well-equipped forces, whatever the name they are called. But it will surely impact the security architecture of the Asian hemisphere and, by implication, that of the wider world. This is why China, envisaging Japan, already the third largest economy in the world, with the capacity to project a military force commensurate with its economy, has started protesting the constitutional amendment bid.
But with Pyongyang boasting, “We will conduct ICBM tests anytime and anywhere…,” there may be no stopping Abe. The prime minister’s cause is further reinforced by the inability of the United Nations to put Kim’s ambition in check. The US that could have discouraged the rearmament drive, on the other hand, would not mind a well-armed ally to put an eye on the activities of sabre-rattling, non-friendly nations in the Far East.
However, there is still room for the world powers, especially China, Russia and America, with substantial interest in the Far East and beyond to move quickly and halt the arms race that is being reignited now. Surely, working under the aegis of the UN, there can be a way of bringing the parties to talk peace rather than brandishing weapons of war.
END
Be the first to comment