In this Friday, Sept. 18, 2015 file photo, a protester holding a sign that reads: "Do not abolish the pacifist Article 9 (of the U.S.-drafted post World War II constitution)" shouts slogans as he is surrounded by police officers during a rally against the Japanese government in front of the parliament building in Tokyo. In the wee hours of Saturday morning, Sept. 19, Japan took a step toward having a military in line with most armed forces around the world, one that would be able to take part in combat even when the country is not under direct attack. While Japan’s military remains far from unfettered, the package of bills approved by parliament is a further step in a gradual erosion of the restrictions that has been underway for more than two decades. AP /Shuji Kajiyama, File
In the wee hours of Saturday morning,
Not everyone agrees that would be a good thing, as the noisy
street protests outside parliament and the requisite criticism from China show.
But conservatives in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party,
who have long chafed at restrictions on Japan's military under a constitution
imposed by a victorious United States after World War II, want to undo what
they consider unreasonable limits on the nation's armed forces.
While Japan 's
military remains far from unfettered, the package of bills approved by
parliament is a further step in a gradual erosion of the restrictions that has
been underway for more than two decades. The actual changes under the new laws
may not be huge, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, over heated opposition, has
achieved a significant shift in Japan 's
security framework, nudging his nation closer to having what proponents call a
"normal" military.
Initially after World
War II , Japan
wasn't supposed to have a military at all. The United
States , which occupied Japan from 1945 to 1952, wanted to
banish the militarism that led to the war.
Under Article 9 of a new constitution adopted in 1947, the
Japanese people renounced the use of force to settle international disputes,
and the right to maintain land, sea and air forces for that purpose.
Over time, the government, again often under U.S. pressure, has repeatedly stretched the
definition of self-defense to send the military on missions to the Mideast, Africa and elsewhere, though short of actual combat. And
more often than not, the moves have met strong public opposition.
The first Gulf War in 1990-91 was a major turning point. Japan , by then
an economic superpower, made a major financial contribution to the effort, but
was criticized for giving too little, too late and not sending any people.
"The Gulf Crisis forced Japan
to judge and cope with many questions which Japan after World War II had not
experienced," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a 1991 annual
report.
The following year, despite vocal opposition, parliament
authorized the military to join U.N. peacekeeping operations around the world,
though only in noncombat roles such as building infrastructure and policing.
A decade later, a special law approved in the wake of the
9/11 attacks in 2001 allowed Japan
to send naval vessels to the Indian Ocean to
refuel ships in the U.S.-led coalition. In 2004, another special law authorized
the one-time deployment of troops to Iraq for construction projects.
The latest legislation formally allows many of these
activities. The government will no longer need to enact a special law each
time, though parliamentary approval to dispatch troops will still generally be
required.
The most heated provision enables the military, for the
first time in the postwar era, to come to the defense of allies under attack,
though only when the situation is also deemed an imminent, critical threat to
Japan.
Previous governments have considered collective
self-defense, as the concept is known, unconstitutional. Abe's Cabinet
unilaterally reversed that finding by approving a reinterpretation of the
constitution last year. This weekend's legislation changes laws governing the
Self-Defense Forces to allow them to do that.
Approval of the bills was never in doubt — the ruling
coalition holds a solid majority in both houses of parliament — but the battle
over them sparked larger-than-usual protests, energized a new generation of
student activists and came at a political cost to Abe's public support ratings.
Protesters saw the legislation as an assault on Article 9 and demanded that Abe
resign.
In a way, the U.S. succeeded perhaps more than it
now wishes in instilling a strong pacifist chord in the Japanese psyche, which
has come to embrace the U.S.-drafted constitution as its own.
Abe is eager for his country to play a larger international
role, but voters remain unsure. Though the economy has stagnated, Japan has
enjoyed decades of peace under the war-renouncing constitution, paving the way
for its economic rise. That's a source of pride, particularly when compared to
the war defeat and utter devastation brought on by the military-led government
in the first half of the 20th century.
Japanese are not anti-military anymore, in the way they were
in the immediate postwar decades, but the pacifist chord remains strong nearly
70 years later, as evidenced by the ruckus inside and outside parliament over
the security legislation. Abe's long-term goal is to revise the constitution,
but that remains a daunting challenge.
http://www.philstar.com/world/2015/09/20/1501989/analysis-japan-takes-step-toward-having-normal-military
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.