Less Butter, More Guns in Japan

Posted by Greg Allen on 05.15.2007

It was always a bit abnormal that the pacifist constitution of Japan was written by a general. Looks like it wasn't meant to last either. "Normal" is making a comeback in Japan. Normal, by the way, means lots and lots of guns.

On Friday the 13th of April, Japan's lower house of parliament passed a bill taking steps towards revising the Japanese constitution. If your not familiar with the history, Japan's current constitution was imposed upon it by the victorious Americans following the end of World War II. In Article IX of the document, Japanese people "renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation" and as a tool of international politics. As if those words weren't clear enough, the constitution also prevents Japan from maintaining "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential." Japan does maintain a sizable self defense force, but the soldiers in it are legally civilians, and are basically specially trained cops.

As a result of going decades without a true military (the sixtieth anniversary of the constitution is May 3rd of this year) Japan has been able to focus almost entirely on economic growth and has gone from a devastated country to the second richest in the world. Aside from the occasional attack by Godzilla, Japan has also enjoyed sixty years of perfect peace ensured by close military security guarantees from the United States.

Alas, Japan's holiday from history twas not to last. Last October's nuclear test by North Korea was a shock to the system of Japan and has got many of Japan's leaders scared about the military handicap imposed upon the country by the constitution. Their concern is certainly understandable, a nuclear attack by North Korea would be a terrible tragedy, but the remilitarization of Japan would itself be a tragedy—even if a justified one.

You see, Japan's Conservative Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, talks about the "normalization" of Japan within the international system. That is to say, Japan should be allowed all the same rights as other nations. No one can fault Mr. Abe for feeling this way: it is within missile range of a rogue, nuclear-armed dictatorship and also extremely close to a China, who has long resented Japan's place above it in the international community (at least for the past 150 years, prior to that is a different matter). Plus, China's military expenditures have been increasing by double digits every year for almost two decades even though China's military lacks a real enemy to use such force against.

Actually those numbers are a bit misleading because China's military used to have a wide variety of private business ventures from which it generated income. Part of the recent expenditure increase is simply the Government compensating the military for the loss of these assets. Regardless, Japan's fear is certainly understandable, even rational; Its remilitarization may indirectly resolve the North Korean problem (I'll address that in another weeks column). That doesn't change the fact that if Japan does move forward with renouncing pacifism, one of the more inspiring stories of the twentieth century will have ended where it began.

As mentioned above, Prime Minister Abe feels that Japan establishing a standing military would only be a return to being "normal." What he's forgetting is that "normal" on planet earth thoroughly thoroughly sucks. "Normal" is the system that has kept human beings perpetually in war or preparing for it ever since one cave man bashed in the skull of another. "Normal" isn't exactly an admirable goal even if it is a logical one.

It does, however, seem to be a feasible goal. A recent Japanese poll has found that more than half of Japanese citizens support revising the pacifist constitution to allow for the keeping of a standing army while only a fourth of Japanese people support revoking the clause renouncing war.

Doesn't matter. The latter data is immaterial. Once there is a standing army, troops could be deployed in a "military action" much the same way the United States hasn't had an official war since the 1950's. Plus, public opinion often follows the institutions of government. Get enough Japanese used to having friends in the military—a real military—and revoking the pacifist clause won't sound so bad.

Like I said earlier, "normal" for the international community generally means bad. Many policy analysts were hoping that Japan's pacifism could be the start of a new "normal," one where governments didn't have to waste entire sectors of their economy preparing for war. Universal pacifism has been tried before—it failed rather pitifully, but the dream lives on. Think about war between the United States and Canada or between the United States and Great Britain. Such a war would sounds preposterous, and has for over sixty years. Heck, the United States gave Britain nuclear weapon technology with virtually no fear that it would be used against them. Britain almost disbanded its navy in the eighties (though a war with Argentina quickly undid that) because it was so confidant the US would always be there to protect it.

I'm not a pacifist and never have been, but what's going on in Japan is saddening in a lot of ways. One of the last, best hopes for lasting peace is about to give way to pragmatism. The Japanese parliament is probably right to revive their military, but I hope each vote is cast with a heavy sigh.