Sept. 19, 2015, added another pivotal moment to Japanese history. Despite the fierce nationwide protests, Japanese parliament led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe passed legislation to allow Japan to participate in international defense operations. This nation was bound in the military peace for a long 70 years after the Allied countries imposed a pacifist constitution after its wartime aggression in 1945. It was to “allow the Japanese military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to cooperate more closely with the militaries of allies like the United States, by providing logistical support and, in certain circumstances, armed backup in international conflicts,” according to a Sept. 17 article in The New York Times.
The Wall Street Journal briefly summarized what to expect from the passing of this bill. It could allow Japan to help allies at war, shooting down missiles aimed at the U.S., keeping sea lanes secure, joining risky United Nation missions and rescuing hostages. It sounds nice that a country with a considerable military buildup could now add forces to help aid other allies in challenging conditions and contribute to the peacekeeping of international conflicts.
As I come from South Korea, I do have some concerns over the Japanese constitutional change in terms of employing armed forces. For a long time, just like the Balkan territories that offered a bridge between Europe and Asia, so did Korea between China and Japan. Historically, Korea suffered from many military threats from surrounding neighbors.
Korea was invaded by Japan in the 16th century and was colonized in the early 20th century. Because of historical conflicts, it is quite a unified opinion in Korea to have some concern over the Japanese militarization. Even now, Japan and Korea have disputes over territories and understandings of histories. Many popularize that this step could serve as a future invasion and threat from Japan like the past, another repeat of history.
For Asian countries that experience the brutality of Japan’s imperialism in the past, it has proven to be bittersweet. However, not all people think of it as a downfall. In the South Korean news source Yonhap Television News, some experts expressed that it is up to South Korea and other nations to make this an opportunity rather than a direct threat. Some say that because South Korea is still officially in the war with North Korea, the Japanese military could offer aid in defense operations. They argued that the governments that need involvement from Japan would have the rights to decline or to approve any permission for the entry of militants or it would be a cross against the international diplomacy—that Japan would not cross the line easily under the strict international circumstances today like in the past.
There are some differing views about this entire action. According to a CNN report, supporters of the legislation, including U.S. officers, think that this bill would allow Japan to serve as a wall to counter potential threats from nations such as China and North Korea. China has recently created territorial disputes with neighboring Asian countries. So it is understandable to some degree to employ a tiger to counter the rise of a lion. But, a tiger should never be given enough power to become another threatening dictator of the jungle.
A number of Japanese citizens who oppose the change argue that the legislation took action without much preparation. Some Japanese worried how the unprepared soldiers in combat would suffer heavily from the battles. Others express concerns over how the constitution was changed without preparation and how the long years of pacifism policy was simply thrown away in a short period of time.
I think Japanese government deserves criticism for ignoring the importance of the constitution and the demands of people in making a sudden shift. But as such change has already occurred, it is now time for us to think of how to prevent the abuse of this constitutional change, and how to make good use of it.
I think that it is important to think of both the pros and cons of this change in Japan. Despite the gloomy past, with the establishment of strong diplomacy, the strength of military could be used in the genuine aim of keeping world peace rather than abusing it to create another world war. However, we should watch out for the abuse of this power. We should all keep an eye on it to prevent any misuse of armed privilege—and we should use it to the benefits of the world. By listening to the concerns and study of history, we could make better choices and not fall to the catastrophe of yesterday. It is up to us to achieve harmony and avoid a fatal oversight.
Hae Rin is a sophomore majoring in history. What do you think about her views? Do you think the Japanese constitutional change will have a positive or negative outcome? Please send all comments and questions to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
