Comments on: ichiban kawaiii!

ichiban kawaiii!

delmoi — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:58:55 -0800

Japan's Ruling party, has released a new draft of the Japanese Constitution The draft drops the whole 'renouncing war' bit, and re-titles article 9 'national security'. Japan is one of the largest military spenders in the world. Second only to the United States (IIRC). The new constitution also stipulates that the Emperor is the "head of state".

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:13:38 -0800

The new constitution also stipulates that the Emperor is the "head of state". Umm.. you might want to recheck your definition of constitutional monarchy before you implicate neofascist tendencies in the Japanese government.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:15:26 -0800

What percentage of the annual budget goes to defense? In the US its what, %25? In Japan perhaps %6? Japan is a rich country, but not mobilizing for an offensive strategy.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:20:07 -0800

Look for more of this as China plays a larger role in the region.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:22:54 -0800

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:36:43 -0800

This won't be popular with the people. They're pretty fond of the whole pacifism thing. However, the government has shown time and again that it cares less about what the people think and mainly about what the US thinks. Ironically, I'd bet most actual American citizens would prefer that Japan stay pacifist. I wish foreign countries would stop paying attention to the bush admin. But then, I wish everyone would ignore them.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:43:02 -0800

So should we [Americans] call them copycats? Are we supposed to say jinx or something?

By: davy

davy — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:57:25 -0800

Oh no, another newsfilter post! And one that's Nipponophobic and against the multicultural guidelines!

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:03:21 -0800

It's ridiculous to be afraid of Japan becoming a military power anyhow. The Japanese of today are nothing like the Japanese of pre-WW2.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:13:02 -0800

Nipponophobic Why do you hate ~~America~~ re-militarized Japan?

By: unreason

unreason — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:17:39 -0800

mainly about what the US thinks. Err, I think it has less to do with that, and more to do with helping out in peacekeeping missions. That, and the fact that they're near North Korea and China, two nations that hate Japan's guts, have atomic weapons, and large armies of soldiers that like to goose-step down the street like they're auditioning as extras for a Leni Riefenstahl movie.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:28:05 -0800

Sir, I am not affraid of nipples!

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:29:42 -0800

What percentage of the annual budget goes to defense? In the US its what, %25? In Japan perhaps %6? Stop... pedant time! That sort of thing is hard to compare between federative and approximately unitary states. Military spending in the US is about 13% of total government spending. Which is still much higher than in Japan (about 2% of government spending, it looks like).

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:48:47 -0800

unreason: za-za-zing! :)

By: panoptican

panoptican — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:59:53 -0800

Isn't the whole war bit sort of irrelevant as long as the United States continues to provide a nuclear umbrella for them? Their national security is only possible (in the status quo at least) as long as we have a bunch of nuclear subs hanging out in the Philippines. And trust me, those subs will be hanging out there for a while. I doubt that this signals any desire for Japan to militarize. More likely it's just a way for Japan to justify sending a couple hundred troops to help the US out in whatever war they happen to be fighting.

By: hrbrmstr

hrbrmstr — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:05:58 -0800

Perhaps they're just finally going on the offensive against Godzilla. (heh, couldn't resist)

By: grafholic

grafholic — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:10:35 -0800

This won't be popular with the people. I REALLY REALLY hope so, but then it's those people who voted for that party ONCE AGAIN (UGH I HATE THAT PARTY). for some reason, my gut tells me it's gonna pass. the United States continues to provide a nuclear umbrella for them? funny thing. the US drafted the constitution - and yet after the gulf war and the war in iraq and all other wars US went through, US got really frustrated the fact that japan hesitated on sending their troops - and after so much pressure from US, now japan is thinking about rewording constitution 9.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:12:51 -0800

Most Japanese are reluctant to embrace change. I know, shocking when you consider the technological advancements coming out of Japan. However, that's basically why the LDP remain in power. Inertia. That's also why the people will want to remain pacifists.

By: shoepal

shoepal — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:16:59 -0800

I've heard that Japan gets away with having more troops than they are "technically" allowed by employing an oversized (and unnecessary) police force. It does seem like something is brewing. Koizumi visited the WWII shrine the other day and pissed off a ton of folks in SK + China and around the world.

By: grafholic

grafholic — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:19:14 -0800

i noticed that this news is perceived very differently by those who are japanese and those who aren't - those who aren't seem to worry about "uh oh are they gonna cause shit again" while (some) japanese perceive this as a violation of very sensitive symbol - constitution 9 is the symbol of peace and the huge lesson we learned in WWII. to me, changing constitution 9 is like putting mud on the faces of those who died/got traumatized during the war (not just japanese but many victims in asia, pacific islanders, americans and many many others). i can't tell you how frustrated i am about this.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:20:19 -0800

That whole shrine thing is so incredibly lame.

By: jsonic

jsonic — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:21:02 -0800

I found myself in the middle of an pro-peace/pro-war-nationalism protest conflagration last week in Kyushu Japan. The pro-peace faction was quite numerous and orderly. They walked on the side-walks and crossed at the crosswalk after waiting for the light. Quite a difference from the anti-war protests I've covered in the U.S. The pro-war-nationalist faction was greatly outnumbered and used extremely loud speaker trucks to blare their message. It was actually very effective in drowning out the voice of the pro-peace protestors. It was quite literally the embodiment of a vocal minority. From the protest, it appears that the pacifist segement of society is quite large. However, the right-wing pro-nationalist-emperor-is-god faction has a voice and knows how to use it.

By: grafholic

grafholic — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:24:14 -0800

The pro-war-nationalist faction was greatly outnumbered and used extremely loud speaker trucks to blare their message. that group you saw was probably "seki-gun" - a nutcase extremists who support imperialism. because they're so extreme, their number stays very small (thank god). but there are many non-vocal pro-war supporters in japan.

By: Mijo Bijo

Mijo Bijo — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:29:16 -0800

Their constitution was written by a conquering force more than 58 years ago. [sarcasm] For the life of me, I can't figure out why they would want to rewrite it themselves. Maybe they just noticed that the U.S. granted the Iraqis to write their own constituion and thought they should be able to do the same thing. [/sarcasm] There is also a power-shift in the region leaving Japan not the lone dominant force (politically) in the region. Also, Japan can not completely rely on the U.S. to come to their defense anymore if China were to decide to attack/invade, because of the U.S. economy's dependence upon China for its manufacturing capabilities (cheap labor). I imagine that Japan fears that the U.S. may weasel out of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security that states that the U.S. and allies will always protect Japan from foreign threats. China is expected to surpass Japan as the dominant economy in Asia around 2030. Japan is a sovereign nation and should be able to do as they see fit with their laws. They're just taking the training wheels off of their bicycle (which is now a Yamaha motorcycle, not a BMX). The Japanese know if they decide to revisit some of their imperialist ideas and practices from the past they will be bitch-slapped hard by a number of the powers in the region. They just want to be able to have their own deterrent for anybody thinking about messing with them, not have to rely on anybody else to come to their defense when they could have the capability of doing it themselves, and not being hampered by a piece of paper written by American generals 58 years ago. Your last comment is rebuffed by the article you submitted. "The draft leaves intact the status of the emperor as 'the symbol of the state' who has no political power." Your post makes it sound as if they are now making the Emperor the head-of-state, this has always been the case with their constitution. It sounds very similar to the UK, where the monarch is technically the head-of-state, but has no political powers other than the right to declare war (only after approved by Parliament). The Allies allowed Germany to re-militarize. It was a very important deterrent to the Soviets in Central Europe. I don't understand this irrational fear of the Japanese, it may be a holdover from WWII: the German people were viewed as normally good people that were being misguided by a bad leader, meanwhile the Japanese people as a whole were villified, to the point where people generations removed from Japan were put into internment camps. In WWII, the Allies fought Hitler and the Japanese, not Hirohito and the Germans. A quick google search of the phrase "Hirohito and the Germans" came up with exactly 5 results. A google search of the phrase "Hitler and the Japanese" came up with about 1100 results.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:30:52 -0800

Thankfully those people shoot themselves in the foot by being loud and obnoxious and hostile, traits which Japanese only ever forgive if foreigners are doing it.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:49:44 -0800

What percentage of the annual budget goes to defense? In the US its what, %25? In Japan perhaps %6? Japan is a rich country, but not mobilizing for an offensive strategy. 3.5% (US) vs. 1% (Japan) of GDP -- probably a better comparison. Same conclusion, though. Japan spends about as much as Belgium, per capita -- or Taiwan. In other words, typical spending for a garrison island. "Second only to the US" on what index? funny thing. the US drafted the constitution - and yet after the gulf war and the war in iraq and all other wars US went through, US got really frustrated the fact that japan hesitated on sending their troops - and after so much pressure from US, now japan is thinking about rewording constitution 9. Well, uh, times change. Certainly the US drafted the constitution that it wanted for the postwar era, but we are well beyond that. Conservatives (perhaps some of them Chinaphiles) have long wished Japan would increase its own defense capability, which would free up US troops now stationed in the region. as long as we have a bunch of nuclear subs hanging out in the Philippines. And trust me, those subs will be hanging out there for a while We haven't had bases in the Philippines for years. Hopefully, those subs are hanging out somewhere they're welcome, like international waters. This won't be popular with the people. Perhaps. Asahi Shimbun agrees with you. (Hey, inadvertent typo toward the end. Be amused.) I think they're right, though, that this has mainly to do with "collective security" -- which means a military that cooperates and plays well with other militaries, a philosophy that is paramount today. Even if there are no offensive operations planned, they still want to get soldiers doing more active peacekeeping and overseas exercises. There are, as well, the omnipresent security considerations -- and a sense that the US nuclear umbrella was all well and good when Moscow and Beijing were keeping things in line. Today, Pyongyang is playing its own unpredictable game, and no manner of nicey-nicey with their former masters is really going to help.

By: panoptican

panoptican — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:59:18 -0800

Oh there are nukes in Filipino bays. It's called the Visiting Forces Agreement. Thoroughly illegal by the Philippines constitution but that doesn't matter much to the US. Subic Bay Naval Base might be gone but that doesn't stop us from using the island as a fill-up station.

By: zardoz

zardoz — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 02:49:27 -0800

However, the right-wing pro-nationalist-emperor-is-god faction has a voice and knows how to use it. Absolutely. The right-wing uyoku are very powerful politically, even if most Japanese think the soundtruck guys are a bunch of buffoons. Koizumi doesn't visit Yasukuni Shrine for his health--he knows the political damage it causes but he's obligated to do so from right-wing political pressure. Koizumi's fairly moderate, but those groups helped put him in power. Only Asian countries will be truly angered over this, namely China and Korea. Japan's wartime past is certainly something that shouldn't be forgotten, but those countries cynically use past atrocities for political leverage. This is coming at a time when the US has announced massive troop reduction in Japan over the next few years--to half, I think. If nothing else, it'll be good that the US military presence in Okinawa is reduced. Anti-US sentiment is at a boiling point there due to less-than-gentlemanly behavior by the soldiers there. And Mijo Bijo makes a great point: if Iraq can have its own constitution, not the mention the Germans, why the hell can't the Japanese?

By: rawfishy

rawfishy — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:24:54 -0800

Zardoz: ..Koizumi dosent vist Yasukuni for his health.. I wouldnt be so sure about that, Obuchi tried to introduce English as Japan's official second language in 2000 facing much criticism from the Right wing, he died suddenly a few weeks later of a mysterious 'stroke'. Koizumi knows very well which 'gods' he has to please and give some kind of sacrifice to if he wants his precious postal reforms to go through. The war veterans organization is a very powerful fundraiser for the LDP Political party in Japan. There is no other reason he would let the economy suffer hits through damaged relations with China and South Korea at this time (the yen has slipped dramatically vs the USA in the last couple of weeks). My guess that he is betting that the storms over his visits will pass within a short period of time, compared to the long term benefits of the postal privatization...if they really bear fruit that is. He is playing both fields the Right wing military card and the Left wing reform card, nobody can touch him idealogically or politically on a popular front, locally in Japan. Hence his massive win last election, by sending hand picked political assasins against members of his own party who opposed the reform. Strong stuff for a leader of any country. His Kasukuni legacy will look after him (and his descendants) for many years to come as a hero post retirement.....with his health intact.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:08:00 -0800

Does anybody besides me wonder if there'll be a naval arms race between China and Japan? The latter has the Maritime Self-Defense Force, a small (compared to the USN) but high-quality, very professional "frigate navy" that's constitutionally required to be postured solely toward defense of the Home Islands. The former's blue-water force (the oddly named "People's Liberation Army Navy"), especially given its coastline, population and resources, is surprisingly limited in quality and quantity. But given the posturing toward the "renegade province" of Taiwan, it's unsurprising that they've begun modernizing if not expanding their naval forces. And with Peak Oil looming, there's more to worry about than just North Korea and Taiwan...

By: eriko

eriko — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:33:52 -0800

Does anybody besides me wonder if there'll be a naval arms race between China and Japan? A little, but not really. I think the Japanese are looking at things like this. 1) China is growing fast, and is biased hostile to us. 2) The US, through a combination of hubris, stupidity and even more stupidity will (at best) be unable to provide treaty-bound defense of the Japanese homelands. 3) Therefore, we're going to have to defend ourselves. The real question: Can they? Maybe, but it'll hurt the economy dramatically, and really, probably wouldn't help them one bit against China. Now, if they made a few dozen nukes and put them on missles (and, of course, they already have everything they need to do so), then they can stop China, or for that matter, anyone else, from invading. The upcoming US economic collapse, which, at best, is going to put us out of the "defend FOO" game for at least a decade, is going to leave Japan very vulernable -- and Japan knows this. That's why they're dropping the "no armed forces" pledge: because the people who forced that onto them as a condition of surrender are rapidly becoming unable to defend them.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:31:02 -0800

It's mind-boggling to consider Japan joining the nuke club, considering the mindset they already have against building beyond their modest conventional capabilities -- and the fact that they're the only country (so far) ever to have had nukes used against them.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:36:18 -0800

Comparing the current defense spending is kind of silly. How much can you spend on your "coast guard" or your "peacekeeping missions"? If they start embracing war, I'm sure they'll be spending a decent percent in no time.

By: Scoo

Scoo — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:36:27 -0800

I say let them, solely on the basis of how cool looking the results will be.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:27:24 -0800

This announcement really wasn't that surprising. Japan is quietly (well, maybe not THAT quietly) preparing itself to resist Chinese domination as much as possible. I'm not sure if this article was posted on MeFi yet or not, but it was quite a leap forward in terms of the American-Japanese military relationship. U.S. and Japan Agree to Strengthen Military Ties America is reducing its Marine presence on Okinawa and shifting the other half more towards a less obtrusive base. Here's a CNN article on the deal, as well. The real pointers is the Japanese accepting radar installations that will work with the Missle Defense System, which previously they had elected not to do. On top of that, they'll be allowing a nuclear powered air craft carrier to be stationed at one of America's naval bases in the home islands. Also of note, will be a larger sharing of intelligence data between us and Japan. Also significant is the continued strengthening of Guam. Guam will be taking on a role of significance akin to the U.S. military bases in West Germany in the next decade or two. As for military spending, in the second to last issue of Foreign Affairs, I read China as having the second largest budge after the United States at around 65 billion I think. Japan will use its partnership with the U.S. and the excuse of a dangerous North Korea as a shield to further expand its defense capabilities, much against Chinese desires. I can only envision a closer working relationship between the U.S. and Japan.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:45:54 -0800

Scoo, those .jpg links are apropos, because if the Japanese people were to implement nuclear deterrence as a defense strategy, they'd definitely be in the realm of science fiction.

By: eriko

eriko — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:15:54 -0800

Everyone who is saying "Japan will never build nukes, because they know the horror, they were the only country ever actually hit by nuclear weapons in war" is missing the point. What happens when they can't count on the US to defend them from Chinese nuclear weapons? They know what happens when a bomb falls on a city. Do you really think they stand by and do nothing, as China increasingly demands more and more? There are two kinds of nations in this world. There are nations that are defended by nuclear weapons, and there are nations that are not. The former *cannot be conquered* -- if you try, and get close to succeeding, your country dies. Japan is currently in the former: Invasion would result in a massive military response from the US, with the explicit threat of nuclear weapons. Japan, however, is rapidly falling into the latter. The calculus is clear. If Japan is truly going to attempt to stand against the rapidly growing China in terms of resources, they will need nuclear weapons. Or, at a certain point, when the fleets have started slagging each other, Japan will get a call -- back off, or die. If the US isn't willing to make the same call to China, at that point, Japan is no longer a soverign nation. Japan's one advantage is that they're basically six months from a working weapon. They've got the materials, the tools, the engineers, and the delivery systems. Hell, if it came out that Japan had basically nuclear weapons without primaries already built, I wouldn't be the least be surprised. (If they did, they could go from no weapons to a sizeable deployed arsenal in weeks, and quite possibly have a weapon online in three days.) If anything, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the reasons why Japan will build nuclear weapons. Either they have to have them, or someone else has to be willing to use them in thier defense. The Japanese are coming to the realization that they cannot count on the US to defend them. Add all that up, and Japan deploys a nuclear weapon before the decade is out, if they haven't already, and quickly builds to an arsenal of about 50-100 weapons -- basically parity with the UK, France and Isreal.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:45:08 -0800

I'll accept the argument that the Japanese are gradually going to move away from the idea of protecting the Home Islands, which is the SDFs' mission, to protecting their nation's interests -- shipping lanes, access to markets, etc. But having read the little I have about the postwar abhorrence of militarism that the average Japanese is said to have, to say nothing of the lingering antagonism toward Japan that exceeds anything that Germany experienced by the rest of Europe, I'd be surprised to learn that they'd be able to cross this threshold -- the spectre of a resurgent Japan that can't be counterattacked is going to make the neighbors mighty nervous. I'll concede that Japan has the technology and, given an immediate and overt threat and no prospect of US protection, could have the motivation to build nuclear weapons. But what about the political and cultural will? I respect the argument you make -- it sounds persuasive in a detached, Tom Clancyesque way -- but do you live in Japan, as some of the MeFi'ers here do? I'd like to see some additional opinions from them about the likelihood of Japan resorting to nuclear deterrence. Anybody else think the Japanese would build nukes, absent US defense obligations?

By: Atreides

Atreides — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:13:46 -0800

At the least, Japan will take steps to create a defense against conventional nuclear weapons (i.e. not the briefcase type). As I previously pointed out, they've agreed to allow for a radar installation to be built. They want under that missle defense umbrella, as unworkable as it is right now. There's an expectation that America will allow Japan to be dominated by China, versus engaging in a Sino-American conflict. I strongly doubt this. Japan has only one true political ally in Asia that it can depend on over any other, that is America. Likewise, because of this dependency, America has the most dependable ally in East Asia. Its a mutually beneficial relationship. Japan will desire to grow stronger with the United States as a partner, if only to help allay fears of aggressive militarism remembered from the last century. If anything, America appears to be working on a defensive alignment of other asian countries to offset the rise of Chinese power. The growing relationship between the U.S. and Vietnam, for example, is one such maneuver. Naturally, at the same time, China is working to stop this with its own extension of relationships to neighbors. The question is, will China's neighbors accept a Chinese hegemony in Eastern Asia versus an American one? Is the strong power next door more acceptful than the one across the sea? Is a growing Japanese military deterrent enough to push those nations towards China? I certainly expect that many Asian nations will be happy to use the American card when dealing with the Chinese, and the Chinese card when dealing with the Americans. As to what extent in either scenario, I'm not sure.

By: rawfishy

rawfishy — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:23:30 -0800

I saw pacificism at work here on the weekend in response to the rewriting of the constitution, it consisted of four 60 year old ladies singing old peace songs on a street corner in Kamakura. Nobody gave them.. any.. notice.. whatsoever....

By: rawfishy

rawfishy — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:25:55 -0800

ah, make that - 'pacifism'..my bad, its late here.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:08:23 -0800

I completely understand Japan's eagerness to remilitarise. The US is waning in power, and China is becoming ever more threatening. I don't understand all this handwringing about a very hypothetical resurgent neo-fascist Japan when you have China, which is already well armed, a nuclear power, and essentially fascist.

By: dsword

dsword — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:13:38 -0800

This is the most telling comment in the article: Public support for amending the constitution's pacifist clause has grown as Japan tries to raise its international standing. The United States, despite governmental assurances to the contrary, has long employed militaristic brutality as one of its primary economic levers. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have only served to make even the most harmless countries nervous. The United States has openly stated that it will invade any country that merely suggest the faintest possibility of being a threat at some point in the future, and it has demonstrated that the qualification is really just for appearances. Japan is likely fearing that it won't have a leg to stand on if the United States continues behaving so dangerously.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 10:51:25 -0800

Japan is expanding its military capability because the U.S. is the crazy loon with a loaded weapon? I strongly doubt it. Japan is moving to increase ties with the United States, not the behavior of a nation believing its primary political ally is about to go self-implode. Perhaps with the exception of North Korea, I doubt very many nations outside of the Middle East strongly fear U.S. invasion.

By: tzelig

tzelig — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:29:06 -0800

Would someone explain in 100 words or less what benifit the Chinese would gain from over taking Japan? The Chinese probably can't keep a lid on "Formosa" for much longer - what motivation would they have for overtaking a sovereign nation spread out over 3,000 islands. If anything maybe this is a sign that Japan will support Taiwan's separatist strategies yet to fully unfold. PacificISM on the rise!