Berkley Center

A few weeks ago, my class took a field trip to the port city of Yokosuka, about an hour away from Tokyo. Although I had not heard of Yokosuka before, it plays an important strategic role in the defense of not just Northeast Asia but also much of the Eastern Hemisphere. While this mid-size city is home to both American and Japanese naval forces, only one navy actually has the ability to engage in the protection of peoples other than its own.

This inability to wage war or to participate in collective self-defense, whereby a state can come to the defense of an ally even when the state itself has not been attacked, is one of the most controversial topics in Japan today. The constitution’s Article 9, often referred to as the peace clause, only allows Japan to defend itself and does not authorize the maintenance of war-capable forces. But Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is currently seeking a reinterpretation of the article that would permit collective self-defense.

Although academics and politicians can debate Article 9 as much as they want, the people ultimately hold the government accountable for its actions. However, in order to circumvent the two-thirds majority in both the lower and upper houses and the national referendum that would be necessary to amend the constitution, Abe has opted for the reinterpretation route, which avoids the aforementioned hurdles.

When the leader of a country wants to pass a major constitutional change without public approval, this is a clear sign that something is wrong. Public opinion thus far is decidedly in the anti-reinterpretation camp, but some Japanese still have mixed opinions on the significance of Article 9 in its current form.

On the one hand, the memory of Japanese militarism is still fresh in the minds of South Korea and China as well as the older generation of Japanese that lived through World War II. In history, the Japanese have been both aggressors and victims, and even twentysomethings are well aware of the high cost and terrible consequences of warfare.

But in a new world order where the rise of China and an unpredictable North Korea are legitimate security concerns, is increasing Japan’s military capacities a realistic way to stabilize the balance of power in Asia? Although Japan’s Self-Defense Forces were created for defense purposes only, for the most part, the state still relies on the United States in case there is a substantial threat. Since the Allied occupation, Japan has not been able to wage wars or have its own military, which are among the rights afforded to sovereign nations. As a result, some see Article 9 as preventing the country’s ability to be fully sovereign and to be respected on the world stage.

Like most people, the Japanese want to ensure their own safety, but not if it comes at the cost of its post-WWII peaceful legacy. For nearly 70 years, Japan has focused inward on building up its own economy and creating an enviable rags-to-riches story. Its general lack of international involvement and isolationism have been a factor not only in its domestic transformation but also its international development. Japan has taken small steps in sending out personnel overseas to help with demining and peace operations and there is an argument to be made that more active involvement in these sorts of missions would be beneficial.

However, the current proposal to reinterpret Article 9 is more in reference to strengthening the U.S.-Japan alliance. For this reason, the Japanese and their neighbors have every right to be wary of military intentions. The question now is whether Japan can truly remain a peaceful country or if its destiny is taking a turn in the other direction.