A resurgent Japan can ensure lasting peace in Asia

[Aepsilons]

The international spotlight on Japan’s prolonged economic woes has helped obscure one of Asia’s farthest-reaching but least-noticed developments – the political rise of the world’s third-largest economy. By initiating national-security reforms and seeking a more active role in shaping the evolving balance of power in Asia, Japan wants to stop punching below its weight and take its rightful place in the world.

Japan’s quiet political resurgence is reflected in various ways – from the government strengthening security arrangements with the United States and building close strategic partnerships with other major democracies in the Asia-Pacific region, to a grassroots movement at home pressing for changes in the country’s U.S.-imposed pacifist constitution.

Tokyo’s recent landmark deal with South Korea to settle a bitter history dispute over wartime “comfort women” promises to open up greater diplomatic space for it in East Asia.

Already, Japan’s passive chequebook diplomacy is giving way to a proactive approach focused on the Asian mainland and the oceans, including the western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Japan is shoring up ties with other major Asia-Pacific democracies, from Canada and Australia to India and Indonesia.

The single biggest factor driving Japan’s political rise is the ascent of a muscular China.

Japan is the world’s first constitutionally pacifist nation. The constitution’s Article 9 says, “land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.” No other national constitution in the world goes so far as to bar acquisition of the means of war or to renounce “the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.”

The American postwar success in disarming Japan by disbanding its military, imposing a 1946-drafted constitution and overhauling its education system, however, engendered its own challenges. It did not take long for the United States to realize that it had gone too far in creating a demilitarized Japan.

In 1953, then-U.S. vice-president Richard Nixon called the constitution “a mistake.” That reflected a changing U.S. approach toward Japan, owing to America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union, the Communist takeover in China and the protracted Korean War. Through a major reinterpretation of the very constitution it had imposed, the United States encouraged Japan to reconstitute its military as “Self-Defence Forces” in order to make the country the linchpin of America’s Asian strategy.

Japan’s recent constitutional reinterpretation to assert its right to collective self-defence is small in comparison. Tokyo has also relaxed its long-standing, self-imposed ban on export of arms, thus opening the path to building closer security co-operation with other Asia-Pacific democracies.

With Japan’s nationalist impulse to play a bigger international role now rising, its domestic debate on national-security and constitutional reform is set to intensify. However, further national-security reform beyond what Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has carried out is linked – from a legal standpoint – to constitutional reform.

The Japanese constitution is unique in that it defines no head of state. It stripped the emperor of all but symbolic power. This was by design: The United States wanted to have the emperor as merely the symbol of Japan so that it could use him during the 1945-52 occupation years without the monarch being able to rally his people.

Likewise, the force-renouncing Article 9 was designed to keep Japan as America’s client state so that it would never pose a threat to the United States again.

But today, U.S. security interests would be better served by a more confident and secure Japan that assumes greater responsibility for its own defence and for regional security.

The Japanese constitution, however, is among the hardest in the world to revise. It is doubtful that any proposed constitutional change – even after winning approval with the mandated two-thirds vote in both chambers of parliament – can secure majority support in a national referendum in order to take effect.

The large protests against Mr. Abe’s 2015 security legislation permitting the Self-Defence Forces to engage in “collective defence” were a reminder that the U.S.-instilled pacifism remains deeply rooted in Japanese society. A 2014 survey revealed that just 15 per cent of Japanese (compared with almost 75 per cent of Chinese) were willing to defend their country – the lowest figure in the world.

Make no mistake: Enduring peace in Asia demands a proactive Japan. If Japan fails to carry out further reforms of its postwar institutions and policies to meet the new regional challenges, it could erode its security.

Having spawned the problem that Japan now confronts – how to cast off the constitutional albatross – the United States must be part of the solution. Its own geostrategic interests demand that Tokyo play a proactive role in regional affairs and do more for its own defence, within the framework of the U.S.-Japan security treaty. If the United States were to openly support constitutional revision in Japan, it would help blunt criticism from the country’s powerful pacifist constituency and from China.

Constitutional and national-security reform in Japan will help underpin the central goal of America’s Asia-Pacific strategy – a stable balance of power. Although rising powers tend to be revisionist powers, a politically resurgent Japan, strikingly, is seeking to uphold the present Asian political and maritime order.

Washington thus ought to aid the continued political rise of this status quoist country, which is determined to reinvent itself as a more competitive and secure state.

A resurgent Japan can ensure lasting peace in Asia - The Globe and Mail

 

[windywine]

At lest Japan should have its own and independent strategy and foreign policy first. Otherwise no big difference towards Asia and World if Japan couldn't solve the issue. Its just like a strong US and a stronger US and will be no difference in essential

 

[Aepsilons]

Japan's fall is accelerating. Japan isolates itself by treating itself as a unique high tech power. But so called high tech power cannot create products connecting to the outside rapidly-progressing world. Japanese problems lie not only in politics. It is mainly the culture, the island culture disconnected to a globalized world.

Perhaps one of the core reasons for this supposed iconoclasm of external sources of power lies in the artificial environment Japan has been placed in , in regards to dependence on American defense presence. Japan, as a society, seems to have been spoiled in the sense that it has long enjoyed defense protection from an outside source when this should have been the responsibility of its own military. Conjecture with me if you will; you see had Japan been allowed to re-habilitate itself in the natural sense immediately after the end of the 2nd world war instead of having been forced to accept the pseudo occupation of American military, I believe this would have enabled the Japanese people and the younger generation to develop a more resilient , aggressive, competitive spirit.

A las , we are where we are and the only way Japan can move forward from this real-time learning experience is to shoulder more of this so called 'burden of responsibility', with less reliance on Washington and more so on its own capabilities. This , on gradual basis, will translate into an overall societal change that will preserve the spirit of competition.

 

[TaiShang]

Perhaps one of the core reasons for this supposed iconoclasm of external sources of power lies in the artificial environment Japan has been placed in , in regards to dependence on American defense presence. Japan, as a society, seems to have been spoiled in the sense that it has long enjoyed defense protection from an outside source when this should have been the responsibility of its own military.

I guess that's an externally created mass perception -- that Japan has been somewhat protected by an outside power for free.

For one, Japan has been participating host country burden sharing.

For another, Japan has already paid enormous social and moral price due to the presence of US military. That cost may not be quantified is no less destructive than the economic burden.

Plus, the compromised Japanese decision making is yet another cost Japan had to undertake so far.

Finally, what the US has gained from its military presence thanks to Japan's compliance way off-sets the supposed economic burden.

I also do not believe that, should, in the post War period, Japan not have US military presence, it would be exposed to grave external threat? What external threat, to be precise? There was and there has been no external threat other than, perhaps, DPRK, and DPRK is not necessarily an exclusively anti-Japanese country, Besides, US military presence has perhaps encouraged and facilitated DPRK's acquisition of nuclear weapons. So, what protection?

It is cost, pure cost, on part of Japan, including a lack of many military technologies that Japan would have enjoyed now had it not rely on the US.

But, this is already history, as you say, so, better to look forward. If utilizing China-threat is to facilitate Japan's decoupling from the US, then just use it.

 

[Aepsilons]

I guess that's an externally created mass perception -- that Japan has been somewhat protected by an outside power for free.

For one, Japan has been participating host country burden sharing.

For another, Japan has already paid enormous social and moral price due to the presence of US military. That cost may not be quantified is no less destructive than the economic burden.

Plus, the compromised Japanese decision making is yet another cost Japan had to undertake so far.

Finally, what the US has gained from its military presence thanks to Japan's compliance way off-sets the supposed economic burden.

I also do not believe that, should, in the post War period, Japan not have US military presence, it would be exposed to grave external threat? What external threat, to be precise? There was and there has been no external threat other than, perhaps, DPRK, and DPRK is not necessarily an exclusively anti-Japanese country, Besides, US military presence has perhaps encouraged and facilitated DPRK's acquisition of nuclear weapons. So, what protection?

It is cost, pure cost, on part of Japan, including a lack of many military technologies that Japan would have enjoyed now had it not rely on the US.

But, this is already history, as you say, so, better to look forward. If utilizing China-threat is to facilitate Japan's decoupling from the US, then just use it.

Reminds me of my undergraduate days, actually. I had a professor who was a Soviet specialist; i remember attending one of his classes and he said something that i will never forget, "The greatest threat to Japan was never the Soviet Union, nor the threat of China. It was, it is, and it shall always be -- the United States."

At the time, to hear such a statement was radical thinking, but the more i grew and absorbed various philosophies while studying abroad , the more i have come to identify with the viewpoint of my then-professor.

In fact , immediately after 1946, Japan and the Soviet Union had developed friendlier relations , and as relations blossomed further in 1949, Japan and the USSR had discussed in high level talks to promote fishing rights for both sides in each other's contiguous maritime waters. As early as 1949, actually, the USSR had offered to return all islands of the Kuril Islands back to Japan after both were to sign and promulgate a formalized Peace Treaty.

The United States , in an effort to prevent any jeopardizing its hold on Japan and supremacy in the Pacific, cajoled and arm twisted the Administration of Yoshida Shigeru to signing the Treaty of Mutual Defense, which was a design by the Americans to target the USSR. Relations between Japan and the USSR deteriorated afterwards, thus securing Washington's hold. Later in the 1960s when relations between Japan and the USSR developed further , under the administrations of Ikeda, Sato and Tanaka --- Soviet Japanese plans of signing the peace treaty was yet again thwarted by American interventionism of pressuring Tokyo to "focus" on its MDT responsibilities.

Historically speaking, @TaiShang , as you can see, American state actors have played a nefarious and insidious role in thwarting natural progression of Japanese state interests to suit the American strategic interests, not Japan's, actually.

One thing is clear tho, despite Washington consternation, Tokyo went ahead to facilitate greater relations with China via the Sino-Japanese Communique of 1972, then later in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1978. Its funny really when one thinks about it --- Japan had the strength to resist Washington state actors in regards to Sino-Japanese relations.

One can have faith that in the future, as American hold and influence in Japan continues to deteriorate (as has happened and as is happening) , we can expect Japan to normalize relations with Russia; something it should have done as early as 1949, actually.

 

[TaiShang]

In fact , immediately after 1946, Japan and the Soviet Union had developed friendlier relations , and as relations blossomed further in 1949, Japan and the USSR had discussed in high level talks to promote fishing rights for both sides in each other's contiguous maritime waters. As early as 1949, actually, the USSR had offered to return all islands of the Kuril Islands back to Japan after both were to sign and promulgate a formalized Peace Treaty.

The United States , in an effort to prevent any jeopardizing its hold on Japan and supremacy in the Pacific, cajoled and arm twisted the Administration of Yoshida Shigeru to signing the Treaty of Mutual Defense, which was a design by the Americans to target the USSR. Relations between Japan and the USSR deteriorated afterwards, thus securing Washington's hold. Later in the 1960s when relations between Japan and the USSR developed further , under the administrations of Ikeda, Sato and Tanaka --- Soviet Japanese plans of signing the peace treaty was yet again thwarted by American interventionism of pressuring Tokyo to "focus" on its MDT responsibilities.

Thank you for the concise historical narrative, whose details I was unaware of, with respect to post-War Soviet-Japan relations.

From my readings of Russian Eurasianism during the Soviet period, there were certain influential state actors in Russia demanding a comprehensive entente with Japan. But, probably due to the close identification of Japan's security with US geopolitical objectives in the Pacific, the Soviets failed to capitalize on the idea.

Reminds me of my undergraduate days, actually. I had a professor who was a Soviet specialist; i remember attending one of his classes and he said something that i will never forget, "The greatest threat to Japan was never the Soviet Union, nor the threat of China. It was, it is, and it shall always be -- the United States."

At the time, to hear such a statement was radical thinking, but the more i grew and absorbed various philosophies while studying abroad , the more i have come to identify with the viewpoint of my then-professor.

In fact , immediately after 1946, Japan and the Soviet Union had developed friendlier relations , and as relations blossomed further in 1949, Japan and the USSR had discussed in high level talks to promote fishing rights for both sides in each other's contiguous maritime waters. As early as 1949, actually, the USSR had offered to return all islands of the Kuril Islands back to Japan after both were to sign and promulgate a formalized Peace Treaty.

The United States , in an effort to prevent any jeopardizing its hold on Japan and supremacy in the Pacific, cajoled and arm twisted the Administration of Yoshida Shigeru to signing the Treaty of Mutual Defense, which was a design by the Americans to target the USSR. Relations between Japan and the USSR deteriorated afterwards, thus securing Washington's hold. Later in the 1960s when relations between Japan and the USSR developed further , under the administrations of Ikeda, Sato and Tanaka --- Soviet Japanese plans of signing the peace treaty was yet again thwarted by American interventionism of pressuring Tokyo to "focus" on its MDT responsibilities.

Historically speaking, @TaiShang , as you can see, American state actors have played a nefarious and insidious role in thwarting natural progression of Japanese state interests to suit the American strategic interests, not Japan's, actually.

One thing is clear tho, despite Washington consternation, Tokyo went ahead to facilitate greater relations with China via the Sino-Japanese Communique of 1972, then later in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1978. Its funny really when one thinks about it --- Japan had the strength to resist Washington state actors in regards to Sino-Japanese relations.

One can have faith that in the future, as American hold and influence in Japan continues to deteriorate (as has happened and as is happening) , we can expect Japan to normalize relations with Russia; something it should have done as early as 1949, actually.

Indeed, those two documents (between CN and JP) are really strongly-worded and can be viewed as daring given of the geopolitics of the time. Two pints were important: The will to absolutely recognize each other's sovereignty and also the desire to properly manage some war time disputes and disagreements.

As for Japan-Russia; I guess these are opportune times for Japan to utilize given the geopolitical situation surrounding Russia-West relations. Just as the crisis helped facilitate China-Russia relations into a whole new level, Japan may benefit hugely by extending a friendly and cooperative hand to Russia.

That would be one of the game changers, in fact, but, I am not sure, such a deep communication and partnership would be likely despite of the US presence -- unlike CH-JP experience (I guess we had the historical-cultural affinity on our side).

If I were Mr. Abe, I would fully exploit the Russia-West crisis which is now on the brink of turning into a live military conflict.

 

[Viva_Viet]

Reminds me of my undergraduate days, actually. I had a professor who was a Soviet specialist; i remember attending one of his classes and he said something that i will never forget, "The greatest threat to Japan was never the Soviet Union, nor the threat of China. It was, it is, and it shall always be -- the United States."

At the time, to hear such a statement was radical thinking, but the more i grew and absorbed various philosophies while studying abroad , the more i have come to identify with the viewpoint of my then professor

Correct, US is greatest threat to VN,too. CN is just a small problem for us. But CN has a very short vision, she willing to shake hand wt US to destroy her neighbours just in order to get some cheap Dollar (CN attacked communist bro VN in 1979 wt US support)

Thanks for CN 'help' to destroy communist bloc for US, now, US is the only super power in the world and CN become easy prey and will be eaten alive in economic war (TPP deal) soon.

Btw: dont blame your leaders, they r just US's puppets, they would be killed like South VN president Ngo Dinh Diem if they dont do what US tell them to do.

 

[ahtan_china]

I guess that's an externally created mass perception -- that Japan has been somewhat protected by an outside power for free.

For one, Japan has been participating host country burden sharing.

For another, Japan has already paid enormous social and moral price due to the presence of US military. That cost may not be quantified is no less destructive than the economic burden.

Plus, the compromised Japanese decision making is yet another cost Japan had to undertake so far.

Finally, what the US has gained from its military presence thanks to Japan's compliance way off-sets the supposed economic burden.

I also do not believe that, should, in the post War period, Japan not have US military presence, it would be exposed to grave external threat? What external threat, to be precise? There was and there has been no external threat other than, perhaps, DPRK, and DPRK is not necessarily an exclusively anti-Japanese country, Besides, US military presence has perhaps encouraged and facilitated DPRK's acquisition of nuclear weapons. So, what protection?

It is cost, pure cost, on part of Japan, including a lack of many military technologies that Japan would have enjoyed now had it not rely on the US.

But, this is already history, as you say, so, better to look forward. If utilizing China-threat is to facilitate Japan's decoupling from the US, then just use it.

LOL
A resurgent Japan
Do you think the USA will give the chance to you Japan?

 

[Aepsilons]

LOL
A resurgent Japan
Do you think the USA will give the chance to you Japan?

Well, historically, Japan was always forced to compete and fight for equality against racist and prejudicial western naval tonnage and articulations. Still, Japan was able to be the first Asian nation to modernize her fleet, and become a serious threat to Western naval prowess (in fact Japan annihilated Russian, and European naval fleets). So, i suppose in chronological aspect, it would be unwise to underestimate the determination of the Japanese.

 

[TaiShang]

LOL
A resurgent Japan
Do you think the USA will give the chance to you Japan?

Hardly. At least, not willingly. There must be some external force (domestically in the US or some development in our region) to force them to do so.

Correct, US is greatest threat to VN,too.

That's interesting to hear. Is this a common perception in Vietnam?

 

[Aepsilons]

Correct, US is greatest threat to VN,too. CN is just a small problem for us. But CN has a very short vision, she willing to shake hand wt US to destroy her neighbours just in order to get some cheap Dollar (CN attacked communist bro VN in 1979 wt US support)

Thanks for CN 'help' to destroy communist bloc for US, now, US is the only super power in the world and CN become easy prey and will be eaten alive in economic war (TPP deal) soon.

Btw: dont blame your leaders, they r just US's puppets, they would be killed like South VN president Ngo Dinh Diem if they dont do what US tell them to do.

LOL, in other words : nixon, open door, vietnam, communism bro, tpp, death, vn win.

Brilliant!

That's interesting to hear. Is this a common perception in Vietnam?

They were napalmed and bombed for close to 10 years, my friend. Over 3 million Vietnamese civilians died for such a useless war of extension of French imperialistic interventionist colonialism. In fact that is why the US got 'entangled' in Viet Nam in the first place, to replace the French (who had lost control after their disastrous defeat in the battle of bien dien phu). Anyways, i suppose the Americans wanted to prove their prowess after their retreat to the 38th parallel in Korea. Alas, their fate in Vietnam was yet another retreat in '75. With South Vietnam being subsumed into North Viet Nam.

It always fascinated me -- whenever reading about the Vietnam War -- how the United States, a nation that trumpeted its role in defeating 'Imperial Japan' in the 2nd world war, was acting as an agent of imperialism in the Viet Nam theater. Its presence in Viet Nam was nonhistorical, actually, and what started as military observers under the inivitation of the French (an imperial entity, who was herself conquered by another imperial entity -- The German Third Reich -- went back to its old imperialistic machinations in algeria and viet nam immediately after the end of the war). Its always amazing , really, for me to see how after years of being a non-existential state and being conquered entities , the French and Dutch had waged a war of pacifying the nationalists in vietnam and indonesia; again irony of the west. Instead of granting independence to their colonial possessions, they had waged a hypocritical war to re-assert their control. The United States , of course, in its actions in Vietnam played a dualist role here.

LOL.

 

[Viva_Viet]

That's interesting to hear. Is this a common perception in Vietnam?

We experienced the long hard bloody war with US before 1975. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the great gen. who lead VN army to victory once said: "if we fight directly against US army, VN army only can survive within 02 hours".

...and US still can wipe out VN army in just 02 hours now. US simply too strong, specilly when there is no more communist bloc to back up BN any more.

 

[Aepsilons]

...and US still can wipe out VN army in just 02 hours now. US simply too strong, specilly when there is no more communist bloc to back up BN any more.

it did not. you know why? because had the US invaded North Viet Nam, then China would have deployed the PLA to push them back. After its experience in Korea, the United States did not want to re-engage the PLA, again.

 

[Viva_Viet]

LOL,



They were napalmed and bombed for close to 10 years, my friend. Over 3 million Vietnamese civilians died for such a useless war of extension of French imperialistic interventionist colonialism. In fact that is why the US got 'entangled' in Viet Nam in the first place, to replace the French (who had lost control after their disastrous defeat in the battle of bien dien phu). Anyways, i suppose the Americans wanted to prove their prowess after their retreat to the 38th parallel in Korea. Alas, their fate in Vietnam was yet another retreat in '75. With South Vietnam being subsumed into North Viet Nam.

It always fascinated me -- whenever reading about the Vietnam War -- how the United States, a nation that trumpeted its role in defeating 'Imperial Japan' in the 2nd world war, was acting as an agent of imperialism in the Viet Nam theater. Its presence in Viet Nam was nonhistorical, actually, and what started as military observers under the inivitation of the French (an imperial entity, who was herself conquered by another imperial entity -- The German Third Reich -- went back to its old imperialistic machinations in algeria and viet nam immediately after the end of the war). Its always amazing , really, for me to see how after years of being a non-existential state and being conquered entities , the French and Dutch had waged a war of pacifying the nationalists in vietnam and indonesia; again irony of the west. Instead of granting independence to their colonial possessions, they had waged a hypocritical war to re-assert their control. The United States , of course, in its actions in Vietnam played a dualist role here.

LOL.

. We know when and who should we make friend with. Its right choice for Ho Chi Minh to join the communist bloc and keep asking Soviet-CN's help till VN defeat US in 1975.

But things changed, CN 'help' US to destroy communist bloc. No more support from Soviet now, we must find the way to become bigger and stronger before US successfully destroy CN cos VN could be the next US's target after CN collapse.

it did not. you know why? because had the US invaded North Viet Nam, then China would have deployed the PLA to push them back. After its experience in Korea, the United States did not want to re-engage the PLA, again.

CN economy is collapsing....and we still remember why France could invade the whole VN...bcs CN Qing dynasty collapsed at that time,too.

 

[Aepsilons]

CN economy is collapsing....and we still remember why France could invade the whole VN...bcs CN Qing dynasty collapsed at that time,too.

No. France applied a pacification campaign in algeria and viet nam immediately after its own liberation from nazi germany, which is what i find almost hypocritical. Anyways, the point is this, my friend, france lost both algeria and vietnam.

In fact the same is true for the dutch; after holland's liberation from nazi rule , what did they do? did they grant independence to indonesia , in light of their own experience? No, the dutch actually tried to reassert their control , LOL.

No, my friend, no. Old habits die hard, i suppose.