Violent action between international states seems to permeate our news: war, use of military force, terrorism and international conflicts are constant occurrences. With this in mind, it is increasingly difficult to understand why Japan, a country that has had a peaceful existence post-World War II, is now poised to build an aggressive army.
Known as the “peace clause,” Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution — a constitution drafted by a U.S. team that, for the purpose of full disclosure, included my grandmother — explicitly prevents the use or build-up of belligerent forces, though it allows for the existence of Japan’s current Self-Defense Forces. The language is straightforward and the basis clear: the United States obviously had a vested interest in belittling the military strength of Japan, but more importantly, throughout its long military history Japan has consistently been the aggressor, save for one military altercation in the late 13th century.
Yet, with a strong and as-yet unmodified constitution in place, this past summer Prime Minister Shinzo Abe decided to reinterpret Article 9 to empower Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to act aggressively. This decision not only marks a step backward in the achievement of the ever-idealized concept of world peace, but also sets a very dangerous precedent for future prime ministers.
Instead of properly amending the constitution, Abe opted not to allow a vote within the Japanese Diet, instead using a cabinet decision to reinterpret constitutional language. While this may have been smart politically — a constitutional revision requires two-thirds approval in both houses of the Diet — such an action undermines the existing constitution and its enforcement, perhaps even threatening the very concept of democracy. Reinterpreting a clause through a cabinet decision, instead of amending the constitution through proper channels, could give future prime ministers license to do the same with virtually any part of the Japanese Constitution. By reinterpreting Article 9, Abe blatantly disregards the importance of the existing system.
The legal questionability of Abe’s actions couples with many potentially negative results of the formation of an aggressive army, all of which suggests this reinterpretation is bad policy. This new interpretation, which has been backed by the United States in our interest to have access to our ally’s military forces, could lead to Japanese military involvement in U.S. or foreign conflicts, a position that can be very difficult for countries when they do not have an immediate interest in the conflict at hand. This change has also already increased tensions in other Asian countries, including China and South Korea, both of which fear Japanese aggression and argue Japan risks creating hostility with this new policy.
While such countries are obviously biased in their stances, their biases are important. An offensive Japanese military could possibly deter an aggressive China — or it could increase the likelihood of aggression, especially over the Senkaku islands, an existing source of tension for these two countries that could manifest itself in the form of armed conflict. But, in terms of pure self-defense, Japan’s existing forces are enough to satisfy its current needs; Japan allocated nearly $60 billion to its defense budget in 2012, employs 240,000 troops and does not want for hi-tech equipment. If there truly is a concern that the existing forces are not enough to defend the country, an increase in numbers or budgeting could solve this, with no need for constitutional reinterpretation or the creation of an aggressive army.
The sad truth of this circumstance is that the collective memory of Japan no longer includes much about World War II and preceding Japanese military conflicts; as the generation of Japanese men and women who lived through World War II dies out, fewer individuals can fully comprehend the toll war takes on a population, both numerically and emotionally. Paradoxically, this is because of the success of peace clause: current Japanese generations have had the good fortune not to engage in military conflict, and as a result do not fully realize the harm that could result from undoing this clause.
Aside from whatever Abe’s personal militaristic interests may be, there does not appear to be any immediate reason why Japan needs military forces aside from its Self-Defense Forces. If anything, until now this country has served as an example to other nations of how a country can function without the use of excessive force — so much so that Article 9 is a candidate to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Though, of course, the U.S. military has at times taken on the role a Japanese military otherwise would, this does not necessarily detract from the importance and significance of Article 9. We have little hope for fewer armed conflicts if Japan is added to the already long list of aggressive countries.
Dani Bernstein is a Senior Associate Editor for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at d.bernstein@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
