Warning Signs From Japan

Warning Signs From Japan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 3, 2014

Summary: Japan's Abe regime is under pressure from mass protests. On July 1, a provisional cabinet amended Japan's constitution. It substantially changed the peace constitution, authorizing the government to engage in "collective self-defense." Put simply, from this day forward, even if Japan has not been attacked, it can cite "preventing its allies from being attacked" as a justification for military aggression.

Full Text Below:

Japan's Abe regime is under pressure from mass protests. On July 1, a provisional cabinet amended Japan's constitution. It substantially changed the peace constitution, authorizing the government to engage in "collective self-defense." Put simply, from this day forward, even if Japan has not been attacked, it can cite "preventing its allies from being attacked" as a justification for military aggression.

As we all know, in 1946, under orders from the United States, a defeated Japan adopted its "peace constitution." Article 9 of the peace constitution clearly states, "The Japanese people, sincerely seeking international peace based on justice and order, forever renounce war, the threat of force, or the use of force, as means for settling international disputes." It states, "In order to achieve these goals, it will not maintain armed forces and other war-making forces, and does not recognize the right of the government to engage in war."

The peace constitution may have been passed under orders from the United States. But its basic intention, its pacifism, its democratic spirit, helped facilitate Japan's postwar recovery. With the end of the Cold War however, Japan's "1955 Framework" collapsed. Forces favoring rapid innovation faded. But abandoning the peace constitution remained difficult. Politicians worked around the problem in various ways. The "revised constitutional interpretation" is an important step.

The new resolution has overturned the "three conditions for initiating the right of self-defense" honored by successive Japanese Cabinets. In its place, Japan now has the new "three conditions for the exercise of force." One. If Japan is subject to an armed attack, or a nation with close relations with Japan is subject to an armed attack that threatens the survival of Japan and the lives of Japanese nationals, or poses a clear danger to their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Two. To protect the state and citizens when no other means can prevent such attacks. Three. The exercise of force is limited to the "minimum required." If the above three conditions are satisfied, Japan may exercise force as a "self-defense" measure.

This is a major turning point. The media have responded in several ways. Some call this "the restoration of militarism." Some say this "moves toward a new era of security." South Korea's Chosun Ilbo linked this to an agreement reached late last month in Sweden between Japan and North Korea. Japan promised to lift sanctions against North Korea if it reviewed the cases against Japanese abductees. On June 20, the government of Japan published a "Kono Statement Verification Report" on the comfort women issue. South Korea linked these three issues and said that an "Abe led Japan appears indifferent to South Korea, and is moving further and further to the right." The newspaper also noted that "The Abe cabinet's three initiatives will lead to the deterioration of relations between South Korea and Japan. It will have a negative impact on peace, security, and order in northeast Asia."

How should we perceive the Abe regime's initiatives? Let us be precise. The international situation is very different from what it was during the Cold War and the Second World War. Has Mainland China risen? Has Japan reverted to militarism? These await more evidence. What is certain is that under Abe's efforts, Japan's post World War II "defense only" security policy is undergoing fundamental change. The right-wing Abe has led Japan far astray from its postwar pacifism.

Following the cabinet meeting, Abe declared that "Japan will not embark on a path of war" and "What Japan needs is the deterrent ability, so it can defend the peace." He stressed that "Normal circumstances do not permit sending troops overseas. That has not changed. The Self-Defense Forces will never be involved in fighting such as the Gulf War and the war in Iraq and the like. The possibility of Japan's involvement in war will be further reduced. Japan may never again be involved in a war." He said "Japan is taking the road to peace. That will not change. This will strengthen that resolve." Alas, his high-minded rhetoric does not change the fact that Japan has reached a major turning point in its national policy.

Two. Given the close relationship between the U.S. and Japan, Japan's initiative was clearly supported by the United States. Encouraged, even. The United States has asked Japan to assume greater international responsibility. It has demanded that Japanese remove the ban on collective self-defense. This complies with Japanese right-wing moves toward a "normal nation." That is why it succeeded.

Three. The strategic picture in East Asia is certain to become increasingly complex and tense. Mutual trust and understanding between Mainland China and Japan was already weak. Japan is worried about the rise of China. China cannot win the trust of the US-led, Japanese-squired Western nations. Sino-Japanese strategic confrontation, an arms race, and even regional conflicts, are possible, This of course will make Taiwan's international plight even more difficult and awkward. The Ma government's grand strategy of "close to America, at peace with the Mainland, and friendly with Japan" increasingly difficult.

Four. Japan's cabinet has interpreted the constitution, and changed its policy. In fact, this is a dangerous violation of democracy. The South Korean media said, "If the Prime Minister decides it is necessary, then Japan can go to war," "In Japan, something forbidden for 33 years, is now permitted merely because the Prime Minister thinks it is necessary. This in itself is a kind of dictatorship."

Scan the media for reports. One will find that almost all Japanese public opinion polls show the public strongly opposing this constitutional interpretation of collective self-defense. But as a Korean reporter noted, "In Japan's political circles, there is only the "wishes of the Prime Minister," there is no "wishes of the people." This being the case, is this not an obvious warning sign for all of East Asia?

Japan has strayed from the path of pacifism and democracy. Taiwan cannot afford to leave matters to chance and misjudge the situation. Vigilance and caution are essential.

社論－日本發出危險的警兆
2014年07月03日 04:10
本報訊

日本安倍政權7月1日在群眾群起抗議惡劣氛圍下，以「臨時內閣會議」程序，透過「修改憲法解釋」方式，達成實質改變日本《和平憲法》，授與政府行使「集體自衛權」，簡單來說，今後日本即使本國未遭到攻擊，亦可以「阻止盟國遭受攻擊」為理由行使武力。

眾所周知，1946年在美國支配下，戰敗的日本通過了《非戰憲法》、《和平憲法》，其中第9條明確規定：「日本國民衷心謀求基於正義與秩序的國際和平，永遠放棄以國權發動的戰爭、武力威脅或武力行使作為解決國際爭端的手段。」而「為達到前項目的，不保持陸海空軍及其他戰爭力量，不承認國家的交戰權。」

這部《和平憲法》，雖然基本是遵循美國意旨制定通過的，但其和平主義、民主主義的精神，戰後日本的革新陣營基本上都是維護鞏固的。冷戰結束，日本「五五年體制」崩壞後，雖然革新勢力急速衰退，但要修憲廢棄《和平憲法》，還是相當的困難。政客只得透過迂迴的方式進行，這次「修改憲法解釋」是非常重要的一步。

新決議已翻轉了日本歷屆內閣遵守的「自衛權發動3條件」，完成新的「武力行使3條件」：其一、日本遭到武力攻擊，或與日本關係密切國家遭到武力攻擊，威脅到日本的存亡，從根本上對日本國民的生命、自由和追求幸福的權利構成明確危險；其二、為保護國家和國民，沒有其他適當手段可以排除上述攻擊；其三、武力行使限於「必要最小限度」。在同時滿足上述3項條件的情況下，日本可以行使武力作為「自衛」手段。

對於這個重大的轉折，媒體有不同的評論，有人直指這是「軍國復辟」，有人說這是「邁向安保新紀元」，韓國媒體《朝鮮日報》則把此事與日本和北韓上月底在瑞典舉行的日北交涉並達成協議相提併論，日本承諾只要北韓重新調查被北韓綁架的日本人問題，日本就解除單獨進行的對北韓制裁措施。韓國更把6月20日日本政府發表關於慰安婦問題的《河野談話驗證報告》3件事聯繫在一起，批評「安倍領導的日本，似乎沒把韓國放在眼裡，在右傾化道路上愈走愈遠」，該報還指出「安倍內閣的這3項舉措會導致韓日關係惡化，還會對東北亞和平、安全秩序產生負面影響」。

怎樣看待安倍政權的舉措？準確地來說，由於國際局勢和冷戰時期、二次世界大戰前後都有重大的不同，尤其是中國國力的崛起，要說日本走上軍國主義復辟道路，還需要更多證據證明。但是，可以確定的是，在安倍晉三全力推動下，二戰後日本的「專守防衛」安保政策確實已發生根本性的變化，這是右翼領袖安倍帶領日本脫離「戰後和平主義」的重大步驟。

此次內閣會議之後，安倍雖然宣稱「日本不會走上戰爭之路」，「日本需要的是保衛和平的遏制力」，他還強調「一般情況下不允許向海外派兵的一貫原則絲毫不會改變。自衛隊今後也絕不會參與諸如波灣戰爭及伊拉克戰爭之類的戰鬥。日本捲入戰爭的可能性將進一步縮小。絕不可能成為再度進行戰爭的國家。」，「日本走和平國家道路的步伐不會改變，並將加強此一步伐。」但是，這些冠冕堂皇的詞彙無法改變日本國策重大轉折的事實。

其次，我們要認識到，以美日的密切關係，日本的舉措是在美國支持、甚至鼓勵下推動的，美國以要求日本承擔更大國際責任為由要求日本解禁集體自衛權，這又符合日本右翼推動「正常國家」的企圖，因而能夠成事。

第三，因此，東亞地區的戰略格局勢必出現更複雜、更緊張的局面，中日間互信互諒的基礎已極其薄弱，日本高度擔憂中國崛起，中國又無法讓以美國為首、日本侍從的西方體系信賴，中日的戰略對立、軍備競賽，甚至局部衝突的出現，都是可能發生的，這當然會對台灣的國際處境帶來更為艱困、尷尬的境況，馬政府所堅守的「親美、和陸、友日」大戰略，在實踐上會面臨越來越大的挑戰。

第四，我們也要注意，日本以內閣會議方式解釋憲法，調整國策，實際上是違反民主的，更是危險的。韓國媒體對此事的評論是「只要首相判斷有必要，日本就可參與戰爭」，「在日本這個國家，33年間不行的東西就因為首相一句『想法（解釋）改變了』而被推翻，這本身就是一種獨裁。」

只要我們全面觀看媒體報導，就會發現：幾乎所有的日本輿論調查都顯示，民意極力反對透過更改憲法解釋來行使集體自衛權，但就如韓國記者的評論：「目前日本的政治圈只有『首相的意願』，沒有『國民的意願』」，若真是如此，這不是整個東亞地區明顯的警兆嗎？

面對日本背離和平主義、民主主義的道路，台灣不能心存僥倖也不能誤判情勢，警醒而審慎的面對，絕對是必要的。