Soon after the Islamic State’s brutal murder in January of the Japanese hostages Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for the nation’s “biggest reform” of its military posture since the end of World War II. Abe wants Japan to become a “normal” nation again, with the capacity to defend its interests and citizens wherever they are threatened. However, how should his government go about it?
Even for a Japanese public that still generally supports their nation’s post-war pacifism, the hostage crisis was unsettling, not least because it highlighted Japan’s military impotence. Unlike Jordan, which was able to consider a rescue mission for its own hostage and launch a powerful military response after he was killed, Japan’s constitution left it no options for rescue or retaliation.
Article 9 of Japan’s constitution, which was adopted in 1947 under US occupation, prohibits the nation from maintaining armed forces or using force to settle international conflicts. Though interpretations of Article 9 have liberalized over the years, and Japan now maintains a very capable self-defense force, constitutional constraints continue to impair Japan’s military capabilities and posture considerably.
Illustration: Yusha
To be sure, Japan’s treaty alliance with the US provides for its security. However, the risks that Japan faces — including an increasingly assertive China, a nuclear North Korea and an Islamic State that has threatened to murder Japanese citizens abroad — have raised legitimate questions about whether the nation needs greater latitude to defend itself.
This could be achieved in several ways. For example, Japan could simply continue to increase the defense budget, reinterpret the existing constitution and strengthen collective security; the capacity of Japanese special forces could be expanded; or Article 9 could be repealed altogether by a vote in both houses of the Diet, followed by a national referendum. Regardless of the specific route taken, Japan deserves to be able to protect its territory and population, just like any other nation.
However, any boost in its military capabilities will meet strong opposition, particularly from China, South Korea and North Korea, which continue to insist that Japan’s alliance with the US provides it with all the security it needs. In addition, they argue that Japan has yet to fully come to terms with its colonial and wartime record.
Japan has indeed benefited enormously from US protection. However, there can be no guarantee that the US will continue to defend Japan’s interests indefinitely, particularly in any clash with China. Questions, justified or not, about the US’ ability to retain its dominant position in Asia’s security architecture in the medium to long term — together with the rise of isolationist sentiment within the US — have spurred its regional allies and partners, including stalwart friends like Australia, to hedge their strategic bets. It is only logical that Japan would share such concerns.
Likewise, though Japan’s behavior before and during WWII was undeniably atrocious, its record since 1945 — including championing the UN and other multilateral institutions and providing guidance and assistance to developing nations — has been exemplary.
It strains credulity to argue, as China and North Korea have, that a normalized Japan would threaten regional stability any more than China’s massive military buildup and territorial aggression, or North Korea’s bellicosity and nuclear weapons, already do. In fact, it is far more likely that a normalized Japan would enhance regional security by playing an important role in the balance-of-power system that China is steadily advancing with its unilateral behavior.
Nonetheless, if Japan chooses to move toward military normalization, it must demonstrate more convincingly that it has come to terms with its history — or risk seeing that effort undermined unnecessarily.
Although Japan has made significant efforts to atone for its past — by issuing repeated apologies, for example, and providing development assistance — revisionism and insensitivity by some of its leaders lately have revived historical tensions with its neighbors. That should stop.
For starters, Japan’s leaders should either forswear visits to Tokyo’s controversial Yasukuni Shrine, or find a creative way to have the souls of the 14 Class A war criminals that it honors moved elsewhere. Likewise, instead of refuting claims about the extent of the use of “comfort women” during the war, the Japanese government should build a monument in central Tokyo — possibly even on the Imperial Palace grounds — commemorating the comfort women who were forced to provide sexual services to the Japanese Imperial Army. The authorities could even establish an annual conference to bring together world leaders to find ways to help protect women in conflict zones.
Finally, rather than protesting the way Japan’s World War II activities are described in US textbooks or squabbling over the number of people murdered during the Nanjing massacre, Japan should seek to help its own citizens understand and process their nation’s wartime record.
Other nations, particularly China, might have strong domestic political motives for their anti-Japanese propaganda, but Japan’s more sensitive treatment of its history could at least stop adding fuel to the fire.
Japan’s achievements since the end of World War II — including its enormous contribution to global peace and security — count for a lot. However, unless Japan makes more sensitive treatment of its history a cornerstone of its effort to change its military posture, the past could well become an impediment to a more secure future.
Jamie Metzl is a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council and served on the US National Security Council and in the US Department of State under former US president Bill Clinton.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The war virus unleashed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has reached the Korean Peninsula, raising alarm. By labeling his invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation,” Putin has revived a territorial conquest reminiscent of a bygone era, casting himself as a modern-day czar. Few could have imagined such a brutal war in Europe, which has resulted in 500,000 casualties, including 120,000 Russian soldiers. The more alarming issue is that Putin’s barbaric actions have not ended there. By involving North Korea, he has now heightened the risk of war in Asia, too. The newly signed North Korea-Russia treaty, which includes
Russian President Vladimir Putin probably believed in his heart that after invading Ukraine it would be left with no choice but to take a beating with no means of fighting back. He likely believed Ukraine would use up all of its might to defend itself and be left with no energy to turn the fight around and into Russia. He was relaxed and unburdened. Regardless of which direction the war would take, the fight would never leave Ukrainian territory. The Russian public believed the same thing and did not concern themselves with the war, with some even going so far
Oil, copper, soybeans and a handful of others monopolized the attention — but of all commodities, the humble lump of iron ore benefited the most from the Chinese economic boom of the past 25 years. It was an astonishing bonanza: From the late 1990s to earlier this year, iron ore prices jumped nearly 10-fold, more than any other major commodity; traded volume tripled; Australian commodity tycoons become billionaires; mining companies turned, even briefly, into Wall Street darlings; and mighty legal battles broke for control of the last untapped mineral deposits. Now, it is over: The greatest commodity boom thus far of the
The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and its chairman and former presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) are embroiled in a series of political donation scandals, and many believe the political ramifications could be significant, threatening the party’s future. In the past two weeks, analysts questioned the party’s use of political donations it received during the election campaign, based on donation disclosure data published by the Control Yuan. The data showed that Ko’s campaign office made several questionable payments to marketing companies, including the marketing firm Muko (木可行銷公關). Two marketing companies said they did not receive the three payments totaling NT$9.16 million (US$285,982) that