Talking about military issues in Japanese politics is like trying to have a frank discussion about social security in the US, everyone knows the issue needs to be adressed yet no one really wants to risk the political backlash of changing the status quo.  Largely this is the result of years of smeantic footwork to avoid and conceal the fact the Japanese government has long been in violation of Article nine of the Japanese constitution.  See my previous thoughts on that issue here.

Exhibit 1: PM treads softly on collective self-defense issue.

From the Yomuiri Shimbun:

     Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said Tuesday at the House of Representatives Budget Committee that the issue of the right to collective self-defense has to be handled "carefully," a departure from former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's tendency to lean toward approving the use of the right.

     "Sufficient discussions are necessary on what kind of international activities the Self-Defense Forces may exercise the right to collective self-defense in terms of the constitutional interpretation," he said.

      Under the government's interpretation of the Constitution, Japan has the right of collective self-defense under international law, but may not exercise the right.

     So we can have a military but we can not use it.  If that is the case then why maintain a military at all?  Everyone knows that this is utter bullshit but no mone has the stones enough to stand up and say so.  If Japan is ever going to become a normal nation the continual self deluding, feel good semantic trickery needs to come to an end.  Just as when the SDF was formed no one bought into the concept of a military witout military potential as it was described, I do not think anyone really believes the position that has been continuously put forward by the Japanese government, even by the current PM.  For him it is simply an excuse to shoot down a proposal by the DPJ, one that he probably should have siezed and run with because, A) it would help to further normalize Japan militarily and B) because Ozawa probably figured that Fukuda would reject his offer.  If he had agreed he could have shifted the playing field further toward normal than by only pursuing the current path, which is important and helpful, but why have just one piece of cake when the offer of two is on the table?

Exhibit 2:

From the Japan Times: Ozawa's Afghan gambit rejected.

     Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura on Tuesday rejected Democratic Party of Japan President Ichiro Ozawa's suggestion that Japan participate in NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

     Afghanistan is "a very dangerous area and can be called a combat zone," Machimura said during a session of the House of Representatives Budget Committee.

     "Based on the Constitution (which prohibits the use of force), we cannot support" Ozawa's opinion that Japan should participate in ISAF activities, he said.

     The semantic confusion surrounding the SDF creates another problem, namely that it isn't entirely clear who has the final say regarding the conduct and scope of ongoing SDF missions.  This lack of a readily identifiable civilian commander and chief is something that I have noted before, here.  The editors at the Japan Times seem to think that the Diet needs to approve evry detail of the operations as the continue, at least that is how I read what their syaing.  You have to give someone a final say, because if you let the whole of the diet run things nothing will ever get done as any slightly contentious issue gets bogged down in days or weeks of debate when an important decision might need to be made in hours or even minutes.

Exhibit 3:

From the Japan Times: Refueling bill undercuts Diet.

     The ruling coalition has presented the opposition bloc with an outline of a new law to continue the Maritime Self-Defense Force's refueling mission in the Indian Ocean. The new law, if enacted, will replace the current special law, which expires Nov. 1. Although similar to the current law, the new law would undermine civilian control of the Self-Defense Forces because it would not require Diet approval for starting a new operation.

     Under the current law, the MSDF is refueling naval ships of the United States and other countries to support antiterrorism operations in and around Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. The law, which was enacted in late October 2001 and remains in effect for two years, has been renewed three times.

     At some level a degree of autonomy must be given, because the person on the scene is typically much better equipped to make a decision than some one commanding a desk in Tokyo.  The smeantic maze that Japanese defense issues are trapped in can only be escaped from by a prime minister saying what should have been said long ago.   That Japan will take any actions she deems necessary to maintain her security, up to and including pre-emptive unilateral military action.  Every other country in the world takes this position, so why should Japan be any different?  She shouldn't be, and it is time to accept that break with the past.  Idealism is all well and good, but the world today calls for hard and cold pragmatism.  Until then the endless semantic maze will keep Japan's full potential on the international scene trapped inside.

Posted by: raging tachikoma at 01:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 898 words, total size 7 kb.