President Obama’s plan to “pivot to Asia” seems to have been put on hold. The idea to increase U.S. military presence in Asia was prompted by the economic and military rise of China, the nuclear threat in North Korea and a rocky relationship with Russia. However, global crises like the rise of ISIS have brought the U.S. foreign policy focus back to the Middle East. The current lack of attention towards East Asia presents an enticing opportunity for Japan to take control of its defense and establish a military. The U.S. has historically been responsible for Japan’s defense, but it is time for Japan to take ownership and present itself as a military power. Remilitarization would be mutually beneficial to both the U.S. and Japan. The shift in policy would mean Japan could assert itself as a military power in the region and expand its influence globally, as well as provide the U.S. with a strong military ally that acts as a counterweight against an increasingly aggressive China, Russia, and North Korea.
The controversy with remilitarization lies in Japan’s constitution, which forbids Japan from having a military. After WWII, Japan’s wartime atrocities were fresh on the mind of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, General Douglas MacArthur. In order to eliminate the possibility of Japan ever taking aggressive military action again, MacArthur and his senior officials wrote a new constitution for Japan, which pursued a number of reforms including disbanding the military.[1] Specifically, Article 9 states, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes… land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”[2]
What is ironic is that even though the United States wrote Japan’s pacifist constitution that disarmed the nation, the U.S. has been pushing for the remilitarization of Japan since the Cold War.[3] In 1952, the two nations signed the U.S.-Japan Peace Treaty, in which the U.S. recognized Japan’s right to join in collective defense and its United Nations right to defend itself as a sovereign nation.[4] Over the years, it has become evident that despite the benefits Japan has enjoyed from its peaceful constitution, the time has come for Japan to embody its right as a sovereign nation to provide its own defense. It would also be immensely beneficial to the U.S. if its closest Asian ally, Japan, were to assert itself as a military power and protect U.S. interests in the Far East.
Whether heeding the nudge from the U.S. or seeking to enhance national security independently, Japan has taken measures to create security forces within the framework of its constitution. Although seemingly restrictive, Article 9 has been carefully interpreted to permit the existence of defense forces in Japan. Since 1958, Japan’s “Self-Defense Forces” (SDF) have included an army, navy and air force over 200,000 members strong.[5] The SDF’s “stated mission is to protect the Japanese mainland,” but as Japan’s economic power grew, it began to feel pressure to pull its weight in the international community.[6] In 1990, Japan passed the PKO law which allowed troops to be sent to join UN Peacekeeping Operations, so long as troops were not sent into combat areas to fight with weapons.[7][8] Furthermore, after the September 11th attacks, Japan passed the Anti-terrorism Special Measures Law which allowed the SDF to operate on the ground in Japan for the first time to “provide noncombatant and humanitarian support.”[9] This law actually helped normalize the SDF as a legitimate institution in Japan, as the troops have provided much-needed disaster relief throughout recent years.[10]
Clearly, the Japanese government has manipulated the specific phrasing of the law and the definitions of the SDF’s functions to maintain and expand its existence without ever changing the Constitution. Japan’s SDF constitute a significant military by today’s standards. Japan’s 240,000 member SDF is roughly the same size of the militaries in several European countries including Britain and Italy.[11] Furthermore, in 2008, Japan was seventh largest in military expenditures at 3.2 % of the world share.[12] These facts are evidence that remilitarization has been slowly taking place ever since the pacifist constitution was established.
The expansion of Japan’s SDF over the years has been encouraging for the United States, which could benefit greatly from Japan taking over its own security and becoming a strong, militarily independent ally in a region that the U.S. cannot maintain a focus on. For instance, being solely responsible for Japanese defense is a liability for the U.S, as it carries the brunt of the military burden. But if Japan established an official military, the U.S. would be able to rely on Japan to assist not only in the nation’s own defense, but perhaps other conflicts as well. The U.S. could boost its global influence by having a militarily stronger East Asian ally, rather than trying to single-handedly assume responsibility for Japan’s defense.
Japan itself would also benefit from remilitarization. The evolving interpretations of Article 9 and expanding role of the SDF act as proof that remilitarization is inevitable. Since the SDF have already transformed into a pseudo-military, it would be an easy transition to make the SDF the official Japanese army. Furthermore, there is strong support for the Self Defense Forces over American forces based in Japan. In a 2008 Japanese Cabinet Office survey, 80% of respondents reported having a “good impression” of the SDF, while there have been a number of demonstrations protesting American military bases in Okinawa.[13][14] This indicates that the Japanese people would prefer to be defended by a Japanese military rather than maintain a reliance on the United States for protection.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for Japan to remilitarize is the threat to Japanese security posed by its neighbors. In the late 1990s, North Korea’s missile testing rattled the Japanese government, as it became clear that the nation was increasing its military capacity.[15] In recent years, North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is even more alarming, as the state has steadily become more secretive and threatening. Being in close proximity to a rogue nation, it is imperative that Japan have its own military that can defend the nation without solely relying on the United States. Additionally, Sino-Japanese relations have been unsteady for years. The recent dispute between the nations over the Senkaku Islands proved that China poses a credible threat to Japanese security.[16] Since China has its own standing military, Japan should match it with a military of its own in order to deter an attack. Because North Korea and China both threaten Japan’s national security, and with the U.S. focus constantly on the Middle East, it is better for Japan to rely on itself rather than an overstretched U.S. military to deter and respond to threats from its neighbors by establishing an official military force.[17]
The two main forces of opposition to the remilitarization of Japan are its constitution and citizen resistance. The Japanese constitution states that land, sea, and air forces can never be sustained.[18] However, the Self Defense Forces already have an army, navy, and air force.[19] The fact is that Japan already has military forces that contradict Article 9 and it is time to amend the Constitution and create a legal military force that expresses the nation’s sovereign right to self-defense. Another obstacle to remilitarization is that “a number of groups both in Japan and around the world that not only oppose the amendment of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, but also champion the Article as a model for world peace”.[20] Because the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be easily forgotten, especially with lingering effects still present today, the Japanese people are weary of abandoning their pacifist constitution.[21] Some citizens are also concerned that remilitarizing Japan would lead to tension with Japan’s neighbors in the East Asian region.[22] According to the Chinese Ministry of Defense this past October, “The temperature and soil for the revival of Japan’s militarism are taking shape and the hotbed of militarism is being formed.”[23] Clearly, China is already uncomfortable with Japan’s military capability. The creation of an official Japanese military could lead to an arms race and cause instability in the region. Although these are legitimate concerns, establishing its own military will give Japan the freedom to engage in only the conflicts and global affairs that the nation sees fit and maintains the option of peace. Additionally, although it may shake up the region and lead to initial tension, Japan should nonetheless establish an official military in order to take responsibility for its own defense and deter potential threats from nearby nations such as China and North Korea. Not only will this relieve some of the pressure on the U.S. military, but it will also give Japan control over its own national security and defense.
There have undoubtedly been certain advantages to Japan’s pacifist constitution, but Article 9 has outlived its usefulness. Japan is no longer the threat it was during World War II, and the U.S. should recognize this and welcome a militarized Japan. Remilitarization would be mutually beneficial for both nations, establishing a strong ally for the U.S. in Asia and allowing Japan to control its own defense. Moreover, Japan has already taken steps towards remilitarization. The expanding role of the SDF alone demonstrates that Japan has already increased its defense and become more militarized. While it is impressive that Japan has managed to build a military structure that is supported by a majority of citizens without ever having to amend its “pacifist” constitution, it is not sustainable. In today’s ever-changing political environment, Japan needs to have the authority to make defense decisions on its own. Japan is currently ready to take on the responsibility of its defense and assert its strength in the region, further enhancing its influence globally. The United States should support this action and welcome Japan as a militarily strong ally that can defend U.S. interests in East Asia.
Works Cited:
[1] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[2] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[3] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[4] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[5] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[6] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[7] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[8] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[9] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[10] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb. Army for Japan
[11] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[12] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[13] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[14] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[15] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[16] Linus Hagstrom, “‘Power Shift’ in East Asia? A Critical Reappraisal of Narratives on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Incident in 2010”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics 7, no. 4 (Winter 2014): 267, doi: 10.1093/cjip/pos011.
[17] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[18] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[19] Tomoyuki Sasaki, “An army for the people: the self-defense forces and society in postwar Japan”, UC San Diego, 2009, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/58n4d7wb.
[20] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[21] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[22] D. Bradley Gibbs, “Future relations between the United States and Japan: article 9 and the remilitarization of Japan”, Houston Journal of International Law 33.1, (Fall 2010): 137-139.
[23] Zhang Tao, “Comment: Japan is forming hotbed for militarism”, Ministry of National Defense The People’s Republic of China, 15 October 2014, http://eng.mod.gov.cn/DefenseNews/2014-10/15/content_4543847.htm.
