Tomorrow the Japan Defense Agency becomes the Japan Ministry of Defense in a change that seems small on the surface but is substantial in its reality.
In Japanese, the new name requires changing only one ideograph, from cho to sho. In romanized Japanese, it is but one letter. And in American English, most people would not see much difference between "agency" and "ministry."
In a nation often driven by symbols, however, this shift reflects a newly assertive Japan that some Japanese say seeks to be a "normal" country. Moreover, it responds to a perceived threat from North Korea and reflects Japanese anxiety over potential threats from China.
The Diet, Japan's legislature, authorized the revision last month with surprising little opposition, given the pacifist stance of leftwing parties in the past. The Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, said the transition to the Ministry of Defense "demonstrates both domestically and internationally the maturity of Japanese democracy."
He contended the change showed "our confidence in civilian control. It also sends a signal that Japan is prepared to contribute even more to the international community and that it will take on its role responsibly."
In practical politics, the director-general of the Defense Agency becomes the minister of defense and a member of the Cabinet that presides over the executive branch of Tokyo's government. That Cabinet of a dozen ministers is roughly the equivalent of the US presidency, a fact often overlooked outside of Japan.
Until now, the head of the defense agency was something of a political non-entity. Sometime in the past, the only thing one director-general was able to accomplish was to have a military band parade in his hometown.
On becoming a full-fledged member of the Cabinet, the defense minister will have more say about his ministry's budget than in the past, when it was fashioned largely by bureaucrats from the prime minister's office and the Finance Ministry. For decades, however, Japan has limited its military spending to one percent of gross national product and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.
Internationally, in dealing with the US secretary of defense or top defense officials of other nations, the Japanese defense minister will be treated now "as an equal governmental chief in both name and reality," says Tokyo's white paper on defense, published last year. In prestige-conscious Japan, this counts.
Japan's Self-Defense Forces, however, will keep their names, both in Japanese and in translation. The Japan Ground Self-Defense Force will not become the Japanese Army and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force will not become the Japanese Navy.
At least not yet -- some senior retired officers have been quietly lobbying for those names to be revised, too.
The birth of Japan's Defense Ministry is part of a plan to improve Japan's security. Abe says he wants to amend Article IX of the Constitution, under which Japan has renounced force as an instrument of national power. It has been at the heart of Japanese pacifism for 60 years -- a revision would constitutionally permit Japan to use military force to protect its interests.
The prime minister has also said Japan needs a national security council patterned on that in Washington and should form an agency to gather and analyze intelligence. Today, the Japanese prime minister has only a small research office to provide analyses of events and trends abroad.
The North Koreans and Chinese have criticized the elevation of the defense ministry. The North Korean Central News Agency, controlled by the government in Pyongyang, said that turning the defense agency into a ministry was intended to realize Japan's "militarist ambition for overseas expansion."
Similarly, an official Chinese newspaper, the People's Daily, contended the shift reflected "a change in nature" for Japan's defense establishment as it "clears barriers for the Japanese armed forces on their way of going beyond self-defense."
What the North Koreans and Chinese fail to realize is that their belligerence toward Japan has accelerated a Japanese revision in their thinking on military power and caused Tokyo to strengthen its defense ties with the US as the US realigns its forces in Asia.
In the normal course of events, Japan would most likely have gradually shed its postwar pacifism in favor of a more assertive posture. The North Koreans and Chinese, however, have brought that day forward, which would not seem to be in their own best interests.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US