Japan is poised for a historic shift in its defense policy by ending a ban that has kept the military from fighting abroad since World War II, a major step away from post-war pacifism and a big political victory for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The change is expected to significantly widen Japan’s military options by ending the ban on exercising “collective self-defense,” or aiding a friendly country under attack. It is also to relax limits on activities in UN-led peacekeeping operations and “gray zone” incidents that are short of full-scale war, according to a draft government proposal made available to reporters.
However, for now, Japan is likely to remain wary of putting boots on the ground in future multilateral operations similar to the Gulf War from 1990 to 1991, or the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, activities Abe himself has ruled out.
The change is likely to rile an increasingly assertive China, whose ties with Japan have chilled due to a maritime dispute, mutual mistrust and the legacy of Japan’s past military aggression, but would be welcomed by Tokyo’s ally Washington, which has long urged Japan to become a more equal partner in the alliance.
Abe’s Cabinet is expected to adopt — as early as tomorrow — a resolution revising a long-standing interpretation of the US-drafted Japanese constitution to lift the ban after his ruling party finalists an agreement with its junior partner.
Legal revisions to implement the change must be approved by parliament and restrictions could be imposed in the process.
SIGNIFICANT SHIFT
“If this gets through the Japanese political system, it would be the most significant change in Japan’s defense policy since the Self-Defense Forces were established in 1954,” said Alan Dupont, a professor of international security at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
Since its defeat in 1945, Japan’s military has not engaged in combat. While successive governments have stretched the limits of the US-drafted pacifist charter not only to allow the existence of a standing military, but also to permit non-combat missions abroad, its armed forces are still far more constrained legally than those in other countries.
Japanese conservatives say the charter’s war-renouncing Article 9 has excessively restricted the nation’s ability to defend itself, and that a changing regional power balance including a rising China means Japan’s security policies must be more flexible.
Abe, whose first term as prime minister ended when he abruptly quit in 2007, returned in triumph in December 2012, pledging to revive Japan’s stagnant economy and bolster its global security clout. He has pushed for the change despite surveys showing voters are divided and wary.
“In my view, Japan is finally catching up with the global standard of security,” former Japanese diplomat Kunihiko Miyake said. “Japan can now do as every other United Nations member under the UN charter.”
EXISTENTIAL THREAT
According to the draft Cabinet resolution, Japan could exercise force to the minimum degree necessary in cases where a country with which it has close ties is attacked and the following conditions are met: there is a threat to the existence of the Japanese state, a clear danger exists that the Japanese population’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could be subverted and there is no appropriate alternative.
Precisely how the change might work in practice remains unclear. Junior government coalition partner New Komeito is stressing that the scope of revision is limited, and Japanese voters are still wary of entanglements in conflicts far from home.
“Symbolically, it is a big step. The fundamental change to post-war Japanese security and defense policies which basically said we would defend ourselves, but not help others by using force — philosophically this will be a fundamental change,” said Narushige Michishita, a security expert at the National Graduate School for Policy Studies in Tokyo.
“The Japanese people are not going to support a significant military commitment of Japan to foreign contingencies and wars, quite apart from how you could interpret the words,” he added.
Examples floated by Japan’s government of what the change could allow the nation’s military to do range from defending a US ship evacuating Japanese and aiding a US ship under attack near Japan, to shooting down a ballistic missile headed for US territory and taking part in international mine-sweeping operations when a conflict has closed vital sea lanes.
WELCOME SIGN?
However, some of the scenarios have been dismissed by experts as a public-relations exercise to convince wary voters of the need for the change, rather than realistic possibilities.
For example, Japan might be too busy coping with North Korean missiles headed for its territory to shoot down ones headed for the US, some experts said.
Meanwhile, unforeseen contingencies could also arise.
“The idea of identifying specific cases is a red herring, because we never really know,” said Richard Samuels, director of the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “What we need to know is whether an ally will help us.”
The change is expected to make it easier for Japan to take part in bilateral and multilateral military exercises with countries other than the US, including Southeast Asian nations such as the Philippines that have maritime disputes with China and are welcoming Japan’s expanded security role, Michishita said.
“It is not for joint war-fighting, but for capacity-building. It would be a very difficult step if we were to fight together,” Michishita said.
Philippine President Benigno Aquino III said after meeting Abe last week that Manila welcomed Japan’s more assertive policy.
ARTICLE 9
Critics say revising the interpretation of the constitution will gut pacifist Article 9 and make a mockery of formal amendment procedures, which are politically much tougher.
“Cabinets can change often. If we change the interpretation of the constitution each time the Cabinet changes, the stability of law will be fundamentally overturned and we will be unable to exist as a constitutional state,” Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Seiichiro Murakami, who is a rare, outspoken critic of Abe, told a news conference.
Still, experts say the impact of Article 9 remains strong.
“They are still genuflecting to the constitution,” Samuels said. “I think there is a lot left of Article 9. The Japanese public has made it clear that it is ‘not so fast’ in getting rid of it.”
Additional reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo, Kiyoshi Takenaka and Minami Funakoshi
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past