"The Rising Sun"

     Two days ago, on July 1, 2014, the cabinet of Prime Minister Abe of Japan agreed to change Japan's anti-war constitution to allow for "collective self-defense."  A special committee was appointed immediately to start the process, to change the key wording in the constitution to allow for what is commonly referred to as "collective self-defense."  This move may seem innocuous enough to a casual observer, and indeed, it may prove to be nothing but a change in semantics.  On the other hand, it has alarmed some, particularly those countries that had suffered heavily under Japanese military aggression of the past, primarily, China and Korea.  Surprisingly, Philippines, which had also suffered heavily under the Japanese occupation, announced that it was all for Japan's new change in constitution!
     The term "collective self-defense," also at times referred to as the"right to self-defense," primarily refers to a country's right to take military action against another country if it feels that it is being threatened, even indirectly.  For instance, a member of NATO whose neighbor, also member of NATO is being attacked, can launch an attack against the aggressor although its own country is not directly being attacked.  The reasoning is that if the nation state feels that its safety is being threatened, that it can be affected by the aggressor's act, then it has a right to defend itself by launching a strike.  It was through this particular "collective self-defense" that NATO became involved in Afghanistan, and earlier, some countries participated in Iraq.  So, under the new re-written Japanese constitution, Japan would have a right to launch an attack against an aggressor in another country if Japan feels that its own security is being threatened.  That is a very simplistic explanation, but it is the gist of the so-called "collective self-defense" or the "right to self defense."
     This shift in Japan's policy toward more militaristic approach is not something new.  It has been discussed and had been brewing for a couple of decades now.  The U.S. has been the strongest supporter of this shift and had been encouraging Japan to build up its military capability for decades!  Although Japan's involvement in Iraq was strictly of humanitarian nature, it gave Japan an opportunity to test its ability to move troops rapidly long distance.  Half of the Japanese troops in Iraq were from non-combat units, an engineering battalion.  But the other half was a battalion from their Airborne Brigade.  Of course, they were there to provide security for the engineers, but nevertheless, a combat unit was deployed and tested.
     To US this move on Japan's part is seen as a way of relieving some of it's security burden in Asia.  In short, should trouble arise with  North Korea, China, or even Russia, Japan would not only provide US with much needed bases, but it could theoretically participate actively as well.  At least that is the hope of the supporters of this change.  To China and Korea (both North and South), this is a disturbing turn of events.  Both countries had suffered terribly under Japanese military aggression and feel that they know only too well what Japan is capable of doing, if it so decides.  Perhaps they are being paranoid, unnecessarily concerned about something that may come to nothing.  Proponents and supporters of Japan's new shift to a more aggressive stance seem to think so, but try telling that to the Chinese and Koreans!
     I am rather surprised that so little coverage was given to this important change in Japanese constitution and policy by US media.  There were some snippets in CNN world news coverage, but practically nothing from our three big networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC.  There was constant coverage of our soccer team's efforts in Brazil, but nary a word about Japan's new shift!  Now, as I said earlier, it may come to nothing, just some changes in wording in the constitution.  But then again, it may start a dramatic shift in Japan's policies.  In Japan, there have been numerous demonstration by opposition to this new change.  Some demonstrations turned violent, and one man set himself on fire after pouring gasoline all over - shades of Vietnam and protesting Buddhist monks!  So, the Japanese, apparently have not taken it so lightly, at least not the ones who oppose this change!  The ROK, our strongest military ally in northeast Asia, has had numerous meetings with PRC, including a state visit by PRC leader to Seoul, supposedly to firm up economic ties.  It seems that ROK is trying to strengthen its ties with PRC!  On the other hand, our Secretary of Defense announced (yes, there was that bit of news coverage!) that it was a good thing for Japan and the US. therefore, for the region!
     Nationalism has been on the rise in Japan in the last quarter of a century or more, since the 1970s when we returned Okinawa to Japan.  A telling point was when the Prime Minister of Japan at the time made a comment to the effect that the troubles we were having in Detroit with our auto industry in the 1970s was due to lack of proper work ethic and spirit, unlike the Japanese!  Of course he had to apologize almost immediately, saying that it was not what he meant, etc.  I remember well, at that time, thinking that the seeds of Japanese nationalism had not died with World War Two, they were just dormant for a few decades.
     Since the 1970s, Japan has steadily increased the strength of its Jei-tai, the Japan Self-Defense Force, a name that their military took on after World War Two to send a signal to everyone that they were not an aggressive force.  Today, it is a small but a very powerful, well armed and well trained military force of 250,000 men.  The new constitution would no doubt allow for dramatic increase both in manpower and weaponry.  Being a completely self sufficient force, armed with all Japanese made weaponry, they only purchase some jet fighters from us, finding it cheaper to do so than to build their own.
     By supporting Japan unconditionally more or less, siding with Japan in its dispute with PRC over some islands in East China Sea and supporting Japan's new constitutional change, we have sent a clear message that we will be behind Japan, no matter what.  That is good, it is good to stand behind your friends, providing you keep your word!  But at the same time, it has created a problem.  We have alienated to some extent our closest military ally in the region, ROK, and our largest trading partner and biggest debt holder, PRC, driving the two closer, not a good thing for us!
     Only time will tell if the newly rising Japanese nationalism will take the form of the former militarism that led to problems for the rest of the world or if it will just be a passing fancy, so to speak.  Only time will tell if the change in the constitution will bring about a dramatic increase in Japanese military and aggressive military adventures as some fear, or if things will remain at status quo and the constitutional change will only be an exercise in semantics.