A Debate over Self Defense
Notwithstanding
the charter, Japan has over the years, developed a formidable armed force, known
euphemistically as the “Self-Defense Forces”, but their operations are still constrained
by a legal framework that imposes some of the tightest restrictions on the
military of any other country.
Since
1991, for example, Japan has participated in various peacekeeping missions
abroad, starting with Cambodia. It also takes part in anti-piracy patrols in
the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia.
However, if a neighboring peacekeeping force from another nation, say
Norway, came under attack from terrorists, Japan would be legally constrained
from coming to their rescue.
Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe wants to change this. For one thing in comports with his
own personal desire to make Japan a “normal nation”, one that exert force like
any other nation. But it also comes from heightened sense of danger from North
Korea’s nuclear ambitions to China’s territorial claims.
Underscoring
the concern was a recent incident in which China scrambled two advanced fighter
jets to fly within 50 meters of two unarmed Japanese patrol air craft that were
monitoring a joint China-Russia fleet exercise in the East China Sea near the
disputed Senkaku/Daioyu islands. Beijing brushed off protests from Tokyo.
Abe
wants his cabinet to declare by the end of the current session of parliament in
late June that so-called “collective self-defense” (that is aiding an ally)
conforms with the constitution. He wants this done soon so it can form part of
the negotiations with the U.S. in developing a new understanding of their
respective roles in the defense of Japan, the first time these guidelines have
been revised in 20 years.
In his
keynote speech at the Shangri-la Dialoge on security matter last weekend in
Singapore, Abe said “it was incumbent on us in Japan to reconstruct the legal
basis pertinent to the right of collective self-defense.” US Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel publically backed Abe. “We support Japan’s new effort,” he
said.Most of the American security establishment supports collective defense by Japan and is not overly concerned about what obstacles Abe has navigate to get there. President Barack Obama himself issued a statement during his April visit to Japan supporting Abe’s proposed changes.
But Abe may have trouble getting his way. Public opinion polls show a public evenly split on the overall issue with a still strong pacifistic element in the electorate that worries that any change will send Japan down a slippery slope towards the militarized Japanese state of the 1930-40s.
On the
other hand, the same polls show broader support when asked about specific
contingencies, such as whether a Japanese warship can legally come to the aid
of an American ship in danger by an attack of North Korean patrol boats, for
example.
Abe’s
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has a commanding majority in parliament as a
result of the party’s smashing victory in the 2012 general election, but it is
a curious position where the “loyal opposition” is coming not from the
opposition parties themselves but from within the governing coalition itself.The LDP is allied with New Komeito, the political arm of a Japanese Buddhist sect that has strong pacifistic tendencies. Abe’s whole political efforts for the present are directed at trying to overcome the Komeito party’s scruples over collective self-defense, which the party leaders mainly oppose.
If he
pushes ahead without making major concessions to Komeito’s concerns, it is
possible that the Buddhist party might leave the coalition. Abe is loath to let
that happen. It is partly for purely practical terms, as the Komeito alliance
helps the LDP win elections, but also fear that it might imperil its other
initiatives to strengthen the economy, known as “Abenomics”
The premier
knows from his previous short stint in office (2006-2007) that he can be
politically punished if he is perceived as being more interested in promoting his
own pet security ideas than he is in fixing the economy and other issues that
the public thinks more directly impacts their livelihoods.So for now, the prime minister has had to modify his goals and has adopted a strategy of listing specific examples calling for use of collective self-defense, such as intercepting a North Korean ballistic missile aimed at American assets or territory, that the Komeito may find acceptable.
Some opposition also comes from those, including some in Abe’s own party, who believe that any such significant change to the constitution should be made by amendment, not by the unilateral decision of a the cabinet that may be in office for only a few years.
Japans’
constitution, written by American occupiers in 1946, has never been amended
because no party has ever had the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses
of parliament to refer an amendment to a national referendum. Despite Abe’s commanding majority (even
without Komeito) in the lower house, it doesn’t have the votes in the upper
chamber.