In the past few years, Japan has gotten at least a little bit more aggressive in its foreign policy. After joining the coalition of the willing in the early 2000s, the government of Japan recently passed a law to make it possible to engage in foreign wars assuming their allies (most likely the United States or South Korea) are in danger. What is a surprise is that it has taken seventy years since the Japanese surrender for them to get to this point, a constitutional prohibition on aggressive war notwithstanding. What is also a surprise is that the Japanese people do not want anything to do with increased Japanese militarism, but their government, presumably under some pressure from our own government, is willing to bend its own constitution to the breaking point to increase Japanese influence around the world, with a population gripped by immense concern over what that means for the safety of Japanese citizens who could be called into battle in East Asia, like the good old days.
The context of Japanese efforts to increase its potential military presence are ominous. Ever since the Japanese gave up the gun for the second time [1], the United States has taken the responsibility to protect Japan from the world, for the most part, and to protect the world from what Japan was. Yet, in light of alarming Chinese efforts to control the seas by building islands, and its provocative efforts to send its naval forces into American waters, clearly there are some people who are spooked into thinking that a re-armed Japan is better than a China that is left to its own devices. Yet, if Japan is clearly in danger with a resurgent China, clearly the people of Japan are more worried about Japanese sons (and daughters) dying in Korea or other places for the safety and benefit of others, something that does not appear to bother the leaders of Japan.
As for me, I find myself in one of those ambivalent feelings. When a Japanese government that goes out of its way to build war shrines in places like Thailand to honor war dead, and when controversial (to put it very mildly) military figures from World War II are rehabilitated, this is a sign of trouble. When this occurs in a dangerous world where a militarized Japan starts to look like the lesser of the evils, this is a more troubling sign. Yet decisions made in fear and haste are seldom the wisest ones. Furthermore, a militarized Japanese government that is arming despite the hostility of a substantial portion, if not a majority, of its people, contrary to its own constitution written in the aftermath of World War II, is not a good option at all. If it seems as if something must be done, one needs to make sure that one is doing the right thing.
In this matter, it is unclear that the recently passed law in Japan will even survive the scrutiny of the courts. For an odd reason, the courts of Japan have not been as prone as those of the United States to declare laws unconstitutional. Yet the passage of laws that are blatantly unconstitutional in the face of large protests would appear to be a case where a court would be expected to show at least a little bit of temerity in rejecting the behavior of legislators who clearly are working for other interests. And yet here too, depending on the courts, or celebrating judicial review, is itself a dangerous matter, since activists courts cause all kinds of trouble when their behavior acts against good laws that seek to arrest societal decline rather than adventures in militarism. What is invoked in times of dire emergency or threat is hard to avoid invoking in less dangerous times–something true of both Japanese courts and Japanese armies.
And yet what options exist? Is Japan arming on the dreams of military glory among its own leaders, despite a distinct lack of military fervor among its population? If so, that is a more dangerous option given the lack of Japanese repentance for its sins in World War II, for which it still has not made full confession, to say nothing of restitution. Of course, if Japan is re-arming at the quiet behest of the United States, that adds more angles into the problem, namely the lack of will or ability among American political and military leaders to resist the growing strength of China on our own. It is in times like this where statesmanship is required, looking at implications of actions, and being able to weigh and balance what is expedient as opposed to what is the best course of action in the long run. Do we have such statesmen here and now?
Edge Induced Cohesion 