Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/07/05 05:05:45
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
TOKYO – In one of modern Japan's biggest changes to security policy, its government decided this week to reinterpret Article 9 of its constitution to allow greater use of military force to defend other countries. The move sparked street protests amid fears it marks a reversal of Japan's post-World War II pacifist principles.
Three experts shared their thoughts with The Associated Press about where Japan's military is headed and why it is such a sensitive issue: Jeffrey Kingston, head of Asian studies at Temple University Japan; Takeshi Iwaya, chairman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's Research Commission on Security; and Narushige Michishita, director of the Security and International Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. Quotes have been edited and condensed.
___
THE ANTIWAR CONSTITUTION
KINGSTON: Article 9 was part of the U.S.-written constitution that banned Japan from maintaining armed forces and resorting to war. Over the years, Japan has actually built up a fairly large and modern defense: navy, air force, army. Also, Japan has stretched the envelope of what's possible in terms of what it can do in the security realm. But this really is not seen by Washington as enough, and certain conservatives in Japan have long advocated for Japan to develop a more assertive defense posture. So Article 9 is seen to be a constraint on Japan's desires to up its security profile, and the fact is, Japan does live in a dangerous neighborhood.
___
UPPING JAPAN'S ROLE
IWAYA: We seek to play a more proactive role to ensure peace and stability in the region. It must have been difficult for the U.S. to serve as lone policeman for the world, and it might have faced calls from its people to step back. But we say, "America-san, please keep your presence here for the peace, stability and prosperity for the Asia-Pacific region. Japan will help more, so let's do it together." That's what we are trying to do.
___
PUBLIC FEARS
KINGSTON: A lot of analysts say, "Hey, you have North Korea lobbying missiles, China flexing its muscles, you have these disputes in the East China Sea. Why don't the Japanese people get with the program?" The thing is, pacifism is part of Japan's national identity. Postwar, the Japanese people have found in pacifism — redemption. All children, where do they go for their school trips? Hiroshima and Okinawa. Both places reinforce anti-war sentiments, which are further reinforced in Japanese textbooks. Look what happens when you go to war. Look at the devastation the Japanese people suffered during the war. Japanese people are very much aware of what happened the last time militarists were in control of their country. So there is an abiding fear of what might happen if Article 9's constitutional constraints are eased on what Japan can do militarily. They really fear that the alliance with the United States will somehow pull Japan into conflict. That's why it's so controversial.
___
POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS
MICHISHITA: We often see concern that Japan will take excessive military action if the country is allowed to exercise collective self-defense, but what we really should worry about is not going too far, but not being able to do anything. Collective self-defense is only a right, and whether to exercise it is a political decision. It won't be easy for Japanese lawmakers to decide to execute it while facing a risk of losing public support. Countries in the region are increasingly concerned about tension over China's high-handed approach, and showing high expectations for Japan's role. Previously, Japan could have said, "We cannot contribute to the region because we cannot exercise the right to collective self-defense." Japan now has lost that excuse, and the question is how much will Japan be able to contribute to security in the region.
___
THE FUTURE: AN ASIAN NATO?
IWAYA: In the long run, I think we should put a large security umbrella over the entire Asia-Pacific region, like the one in Europe. That's the direction we seek under the slogan that the Abe administration promotes: "proactive contribution to peace based on international cooperation." There will be a large free trade bloc in the region in the future, and in order to protect that I believe the establishment of a large collective security framework should be a long-term goal in the region.
I actually hope they do become a naval power. Their land forces are quite dedicated.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2014/07/05 05:08:03
Subject: Re:Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
MacArthur must be spinning in his grave at these developments.
Personally, I don't believe China needs to dominate its neighbours with military force. When it becomes the world's largest economy, and neighbouring countries (like South Korea) become dependant on China's massive markets, I'm sure more subtle and non violent means will be used.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2014/07/05 11:37:37
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
Afraid he's already lost his head They just wouldn't let him bomb China
Personally, I don't believe China needs to dominate its neighbours with military force. When it becomes the world's largest economy, and neighbouring countries (like South Korea) become dependant on China's massive markets, I'm sure more subtle and non violent means will be used.
This would probably be a contributing factor to rearming in Japan really. Before, they could say that a lightly equipped SDF was sufficient because any attack on them and the US Navy and the Marines come running. Times change.
LordofHats wrote: They've got China and North Korea for neighbors. They're actively engaged in territory disputes with China, but then who isn't?
And also Russia over the Kuril Islands
And also Korea. So, Japan was forced into “pacifism” because they went on an expansionist bloodshed, and would now use territorial disputes (with basically ALL their neighbors, including a country that is a staunch ally of the U.S. too, and could hardly be accused of being expansionist) as an excuse for getting some military back. What could possibly go wrong with that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/05 11:59:46
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/07/05 12:08:21
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
I doubt Korea, or Russia really, are who Japan is really worried about.
So, Japan was forced into “pacifism” because they went on an expansionist bloodshed,
They weren't forced so much as there really just wasn't anything to fight over anymore. Some countries, like the European powers, grow sick of constantly fighting with each other. Others like Japan end up with a distaste for fighting and nothing to fight over anyway. Others like America get into a fight and decide it was pretty good and that they want another
LordofHats wrote: They weren't forced so much as there really just wasn't anything to fight over anymore.
Was that constitution not literally written by the U.S.?
LordofHats wrote: Others like Japan end up with a distaste for fighting and nothing to fight over anyway.
Yeah, sure, seems like Japanese would totally not fight against all those little islands . Sorry, not buying it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Went to check on Wikipedia.
“Much of the drafting was done by two senior army officers with law degrees: Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney, although others chosen by MacArthur had a large say in the document. The articles about equality between men and women are reported to have been written by Beate Sirota.”
Yep, literally written by U.S. citizens, mostly from the military, rather than Japanese ones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/05 12:28:39
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/07/05 12:31:23
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
Was that constitution not literally written by the U.S.?
Yep. But I doubt we care much anymore, and really there's not much we can do if they up and want to chang eit.
Yeah, sure, seems like Japanese would totally not fight against all those little islands . Sorry, not buying it.
I mean immediately after WWII. Of the territory disputes, the ones with Russia and Korea are minor (not to mention legally they're firmly settled against Japan who really only seems to make them when a politician is trying to score some points with minority nationalists). The conflict with China is the one that is really going to matter.
Japanese nationalism has experienced a resurgence since the mid-90's but it's not really gaining steam and is mostly just a counter movement (kind of like the Libertarian party )
So, I stand by my point. Japan was forced into some “pacifist” constitution by the people that just used two nuclear bomb on them. This was the direct result of them going on an all-over invasion of the rest of Asia. Them saying they need to rearm over their many territorial dispute with all their neighbors is NOT a good sign.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/07/05 18:49:22
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
So, I stand by my point. Japan was forced into some “pacifist” constitution by the people that just used two nuclear bomb on them. This was the direct result of them going on an all-over invasion of the rest of Asia. Them saying they need to rearm over their many territorial dispute with all their neighbors is NOT a good sign.
Why is it not a good sign?
Do you want Japan to be absorbed by other nations?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2014/07/05 20:18:18
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
Japan re-arming is only a problem if they decide to return to the same mentality they developed in the years between WWI and WWII. Prior to that period, Japan had a military with as good a record and reputation as any European power of the time. The idea that a Japanese soldier would commit the kinds of atrocities that the IJA would later commit would horrify and offend a Japanese office of the pre-WWI era. Between the wars, however, Japan's military began to exert more and more control over the civil government leading to a series of coups that effectively put the military in charge of the country (the coups were always very careful to make clear that they were opposed to the existing civillian government, but were completely loyal to the Emperor). The mentality the military developed during that era was what encouraged and influenced the atrocities the IJA were responsible for during WWII.
As long as the Japanese military doesn't start down that path again, I see no reason why Japan shouldn't be allowed to strengthen it's millitary. After all, North Korea is awfully close by and the Chinese are still sore over what the Japanese did to them in WWII.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
2014/07/05 21:06:55
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
whembly wrote: Do you want Japan to be absorbed by other nations?
No, but then again, would Japan be absorbed by another nation without an army?
squidhills wrote: Japan re-arming is only a problem if they decide to return to the same mentality they developed in the years between WWI and WWII. Prior to that period, Japan had a military with as good a record and reputation as any European power of the time. The idea that a Japanese soldier would commit the kinds of atrocities that the IJA would later commit would horrify and offend a Japanese office of the pre-WWI era. Between the wars, however, Japan's military began to exert more and more control over the civil government leading to a series of coups that effectively put the military in charge of the country (the coups were always very careful to make clear that they were opposed to the existing civillian government, but were completely loyal to the Emperor). The mentality the military developed during that era was what encouraged and influenced the atrocities the IJA were responsible for during WWII.
But… why are you talking WW? There was two wars in Europe, yes. But in Asia? Japan took control of Korea in 1910, and they had started to bully their way into Korea for quite a bit of time. They had two wars with China, one before that, one that started in 1937. I do not think speaking about WWI and WWII is that relevant to understand the history of a country that never took part to any fighting in Europe. Especially with WWI. But maybe I am wrong.
squidhills wrote: After all, North Korea is awfully close by and the Chinese are still sore over what the Japanese did to them in WWII.
And why would they be? I mean, when the director of City of Life and Death receive death threats in China for being too kind with the Japanese troops, and yet had an extremely hard time getting any screenings in Japan for the exact opposite reasons, that is quite a good proof that Japan learned from its error and is deeply ashamed of its past. Or… not.
And it is not just Chinese that are sore about what the Japanese did to them. Both Korea do. Not that this whole Dokdo/Takeshima is likely to make the Japanese look any better. I mean, really, are they even trying?
But yeah, certainly they need a stronger military. I mean, after all, protection from the world's biggest military budget in the world, by a huge margin, is certainly not enough.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/07/05 21:12:50
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
We don't use our military to handle their border issues. Our military is there to serve our own interests, and as a by product we provide a passive shield.
Just because China may not drop missiles on Honshu, doesn't mean it keeps their outlying territories safe, and a stronger Japanese Navy is something they'll need for that.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/07/05 21:29:21
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I do not think speaking about WWI and WWII is that relevant to understand the history of a country that never took part to any fighting in Europe. Especially with WWI. But maybe I am wrong.
Technically, Japan did send ships to the Med during WWI. They just didn't do much WWI featured a single massive shift in politics when Japan took the isles that Germany held in the Pacific. This was a big deal. Once they held Manchuria, Korea, and those islands it put them in direct conflict with France and Britain. WWI played a big role in Japan's later entry into WWII.
WWI had less of an effect on Japan than other conflicts, but understand that the world didn't stop turning while Europe fought WWI. Japan wanted to be a 'modern' power. It was very close to the European powers as its Army often worked with France to keep itself modern while the Navy bounced between Britain and Germany. The Imperial Government was always more of a military dictatorship than anything, so naturally the military tended to pay a lot of attention to what its friends were doing.
Both Korea do. Not that this whole Dokdo/Takeshima is likely to make the Japanese look any better. I mean, really, are they even trying?
Japan and Korea are like the US and Britain. They might glare at each other angrily over the water from time to time, but today they have many more reasons to be friends than enemies.
But yeah, certainly they need a stronger military.
If they needed one they wouldn't debate it so much. People have noted for the last few years that rearmament is very likely, but building an military takes decades. Japan's not going to go from its small SDF to a full military power overnight and the people at large don't even support a move. Polls from a few years ago suggest that the populace is behind an expansion of the SDF's humanitarian capability, which to an extent is military capability, but they were quite against a full military rearmament.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/05 21:42:26
djones520 wrote: We don't use our military to handle their border issues. Our military is there to serve our own interests, and as a by product we provide a passive shield.
Just because China may not drop missiles on Honshu, doesn't mean it keeps their outlying territories safe, and a stronger Japanese Navy is something they'll need for that.
We don't use our military to solve our border issues either
2014/07/05 21:46:11
Subject: Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
djones520 wrote: We don't use our military to handle their border issues. Our military is there to serve our own interests, and as a by product we provide a passive shield.
Just because China may not drop missiles on Honshu, doesn't mean it keeps their outlying territories safe, and a stronger Japanese Navy is something they'll need for that.
We don't use our military to solve our border issues either
LordofHats wrote: Japan and Korea are like the US and Britain. They might glare at each other angrily over the water from time to time, but today they have many more reasons to be friends than enemies.
Except England's grandfathers didn't spend the years of their early twenties enslaving and raping the USA's grandmothers. There is no love lost between the various nations of the Asian Pacific.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2014/07/06 00:17:42
Subject: Re:Pacifist no more? Experts discuss where Japan's military is headed, why issue so divisive
feeder wrote: Except England's grandfathers didn't spend the years of their early twenties enslaving and raping the USA's grandmothers. There is no love lost between the various nations of the Asian Pacific.
France and Britain and Germany and Spain were butchering each other for centuries. Time doesn't heal wounds so much as make people forget about them because there are new wounds to worry about.
feeder wrote: Except England's grandfathers didn't spend the years of their early twenties enslaving and raping the USA's grandmothers. There is no love lost between the various nations of the Asian Pacific.
France and Britain and Germany and Spain were butchering each other for centuries. Time doesn't heal wounds so much as make people forget about them because there are new wounds to worry about.
One of those problems being that Japan was seen as the 'Barbarian Hordes' to China and Korea for a long time, due to constantly trying to invade and butcher the mainland, it didn't help that Japan still denies much of the atrocities it has caused.
They just wouldn't let him bomb China 
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
