Unambiguous intention. Credit: Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2Thumbnail-Example-3-100x100.gif)
Japan is on manoeuvres. The country for so long tethered — or protected, according to your point of view — by the “pacifist” constitution imposed upon it by the occupying Americans after the Second World War may be about to break free of its bonds. Last December, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced a doubling of the defence budget over the next five years and the acquisition of counter-strike capability to deal with the perceived threat from China, principally, and North Korea to a lesser extent. It is a policy shift which can only be described as seismic.
The plan will involve not only the upgrade of Japanese weapons but the procurement of at least 400 US-made Tomahawk cruise missiles. It is a decision some have interpreted as effectively superseding the pacifist constitution and putting Japan on the road to becoming a military superpower.
The initiative shows how seriously Japan’s government takes the threat of an invasion of Taiwan. A Chinese takeover would be calamitous, as it would endanger the shipping lines that supply much of the country’s manufacturing materials and nearly all of its oil. With an American response far from guaranteed, the Japanese clearly feel they need to take their own precautions and signal their intentions unambiguously.
At present, Japan has a unified military structure, the Japan Self-Defence Force (JSDF), founded in 1954. With nearly a quarter of a million personnel, its original purpose was domestic security, logistical (non-combat) support for international peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the UN, and reassuring the population that Japan wasn’t completely defenceless.
Japan was obliged, under Article 9 of the 1947 constitution, to renounce war as a “sovereign right of the nation” — the only country ever to do so. The exact wording stated that Japan would never again maintain “land sea or air forces”, but over time the JDSF has developed from its initial Dad’s Army-style and scale into a significant military force, with license to operate overseas, albeit in limited circumstances. The rearmament plan marks a significant step towards Article 9’s further reinterpretation, this time into virtual meaninglessness.
Japan’s defence from external threat has long been the preserve of US forces stationed in the country, sanctioned under the Security Treaty signed in 1951 and renewed periodically thereafter. A reorientation of this arrangement would liberate the US from much of its responsibility in the region and a good deal of the cost. The UK is also set to gain, as witnessed by the trinational fighter jet deal with Italy and new defence agreement signed in January.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribewhen i was a Law Student back in the 1990’s I did a final year course on Japanese law taught by a visiting professor from Tokyo. During his wide ranging series of lectures he touched on the post war constitution and the renunciation of war. I was intrigued and chose this subject for my course dissertation. What I found fascinating is though a written super statute such as their Article 9 is on the face of it capable of only being interpreted one way, it only takes clever legal argument and a general willingness to look the other way to effectively ignore it. sources I read at the time used examples of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia who both had extensive high minded legal codes which were either ignored or manipulated by the state. I’m not suggesting modern Japan is in that category but it’s obvious that the high minded post war constitution has hit modern reality and the Japanese are showing themselves to be rightly pragmatic.
when i was a Law Student back in the 1990’s I did a final year course on Japanese law taught by a visiting professor from Tokyo. During his wide ranging series of lectures he touched on the post war constitution and the renunciation of war. I was intrigued and chose this subject for my course dissertation. What I found fascinating is though a written super statute such as their Article 9 is on the face of it capable of only being interpreted one way, it only takes clever legal argument and a general willingness to look the other way to effectively ignore it. sources I read at the time used examples of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia who both had extensive high minded legal codes which were either ignored or manipulated by the state. I’m not suggesting modern Japan is in that category but it’s obvious that the high minded post war constitution has hit modern reality and the Japanese are showing themselves to be rightly pragmatic.
“The world’s oldest country is losing hundreds of thousands of citizens every year as the old die off and the young stubbornly refuse to procreate”
A common misconception. The young don’t refuse to procreate. They cannot afford to do so.
They can certainly afford too. People far poorer do.
What they can’t do is live aspirational bougie urban lifestyles, and have children. They’re choosing consumption over children.
I am afraid you are being too harsh on the young japanese. The issue is rather complicated. First the space available in the appartments is very limited, at best enough to have one child. Then schooling is extremely expensive so raising a child is a major cost. Let me elaborate: public school is apparently not sufficient to allow entrance in a first class university. So people invest heavily in the afternoon (private) schools to integrate the skills of the pupils. Japanese life is organized in a different way than ours.
I am afraid you are being too harsh on the young japanese. The issue is rather complicated. First the space available in the appartments is very limited, at best enough to have one child. Then schooling is extremely expensive so raising a child is a major cost. Let me elaborate: public school is apparently not sufficient to allow entrance in a first class university. So people invest heavily in the afternoon (private) schools to integrate the skills of the pupils. Japanese life is organized in a different way than ours.
They can certainly afford too. People far poorer do.
What they can’t do is live aspirational bougie urban lifestyles, and have children. They’re choosing consumption over children.
“The world’s oldest country is losing hundreds of thousands of citizens every year as the old die off and the young stubbornly refuse to procreate”
A common misconception. The young don’t refuse to procreate. They cannot afford to do so.
Japan had several clashes with Russia in the 20th century. The first and most famous was the 1904-5 Russian-Japanese war also known as the war of Port Arthur (actually the real name is Chinese, Port Lushun close to a big city today, Dalian). That war was catastrophic especially for the Russian fleet in the tragic battle of Tsushima and ended the war.
The Russians however waited about 35 years to pay back. That war or battle is much less known, the battle of Nomonhan in outer Mongolia. In 1939 Ghiorgy Zhukov crushed the Japanese army in that area mainly because it lacked a serious armored proposition against the Russian T34. The Japanese kept that defeat secretly and whatever remained of the surviving troops were sent to fight in dangerous battles in Asia so that they could not return home and spread roumors about that disaster. Japan and Russia negotiated a non belligerance agreement which was signed on the 15th of september 1939. Stalin waited for that signature and the day after, on the 16th of september, attacked Poland from the east thus implementing the partition of that country as per the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. As we all know the Germans attacked on september 1st, 1939. The non belligerance pact was duly respected by the Japanese during the whole WWII conflict. Would Japan have attacked Russia from the East the history of the battle of Stalingrad would have been totally different.
The Russians however were not that respectful and after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombing, took advantage of the situation and occupied the Kuril Islands (what the Japanese call Etorofu and Kunashiri).
No wonder hence that the Russian attack on Ukraine rang a sensitive bell in Japan.
Japan had several clashes with Russia in the 20th century. The first and most famous was the 1904-5 Russian-Japanese war also known as the war of Port Arthur (actually the real name is Chinese, Port Lushun close to a big city today, Dalian). That war was catastrophic especially for the Russian fleet in the tragic battle of Tsushima and ended the war.
The Russians however waited about 35 years to pay back. That war or battle is much less known, the battle of Nomonhan in outer Mongolia. In 1939 Ghiorgy Zhukov crushed the Japanese army in that area mainly because it lacked a serious armored proposition against the Russian T34. The Japanese kept that defeat secretly and whatever remained of the surviving troops were sent to fight in dangerous battles in Asia so that they could not return home and spread roumors about that disaster. Japan and Russia negotiated a non belligerance agreement which was signed on the 15th of september 1939. Stalin waited for that signature and the day after, on the 16th of september, attacked Poland from the east thus implementing the partition of that country as per the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. As we all know the Germans attacked on september 1st, 1939. The non belligerance pact was duly respected by the Japanese during the whole WWII conflict. Would Japan have attacked Russia from the East the history of the battle of Stalingrad would have been totally different.
The Russians however were not that respectful and after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombing, took advantage of the situation and occupied the Kuril Islands (what the Japanese call Etorofu and Kunashiri).
No wonder hence that the Russian attack on Ukraine rang a sensitive bell in Japan.
Recognising the problem is at least the first step towards a solution. Our craven political class can’t manage even that.
Recognising the problem is at least the first step towards a solution. Our craven political class can’t manage even that.