Japan is Undergoing a Paradigm Shift in its Self-defense Policy

by Fr. Michael Dulnuan, cicm

(Part I)

Events occurring in the world today are affecting Japan’s war renouncing constitution. Last year it sent off the first batch of ground troops to Iraq. This is an indication that Japan is redefining its policy on self-defense. Analysts would say that the decision of the government to send armed troops to Iraq clearly manifest that Japan is solidifying its relationship with the USA. It does not want to be left behind by its foremost ally, the USA. The Bush administration is praising Japan’s participation on the “war on terror” and even inciting the nation in its move away from the strict demilitarism imposed by America in the aftermath of World War II. And even as many Japanese find the pace of policy evolution breathtakingly fast, more of the country's decision　makers are arguing that change is necessary to meet local security needs, stay relevant to its increasingly interventionist American ally, and advance Japan's own ambition to have the world take it seriously outside the economic sphere.

Looking back, Japan was shocked at the international criticism it received for contributing 13 billion US$ but little manpower to the 1991 allied Gulf War effort. Many policymakers cite that affront as opening their eyes to the way Japan is viewed by major nations as something of a weakling outside the economic arena. Subsequently, Japan began to broaden the legal no-man's land created by discrepancies between the wording and the interpretation of its Constitution, which rejects the use of force to solve international disputes.

The inexorable rise of China and the unpredictable threat posed by a reclusive North Korea and its nuclear ambitions leaves Japan's defense options looking increasingly obsolete. A defense option framed around a war-renouncing Constitution written nearly 60 years ago is seen no longer as viable. Thus, after Sept. 11, 2001, Prime Minister Koizumi pushed through a law to allow the SDF to go to the Indian Ocean to help with supplies for the war in Afghanistan, giving logistical support to a live conflict for the first time - albeit from a safe distance. Two years later he dispatched armed troops to Samawah, Iraq, a thing considered by ordinary Japanese as unthinkable. Mr. Junichiro Koizumi has stressed that the dispatch of armed troops to Iraq is for humanitarian purpose, that is, to provide support for reconstruction of a war torn Iraq. Justifying further, he pointed out that this is part of Japan's duty as a member of the international community.

The US appreciates Japan's new will to take such risks. Japan was nudged to expand "self-defense" to include the defense of US forces should they come under attack near Japan. But many Japanese are alarmed at the nation's bolder stance. They still consider that the Self-Defense Forces (自衛隊) are just that - a self-defense force - they exist to protect Japan. If you send them overseas, then they become an army.　Polls show that a large majority has opposed any dispatch. However, with the strong influence of Koizumi’s leading political party, the LDP, the tide is turning. Koizumi's emphasis on the humanitarian aspects of the mission is influencing the mood of most people. But others are still suspicious. They are unsure about the purpose of the dispatch because the decision was made largely behind closed doors, and media coverage of the issue has been kept on a tight lead.

Opposition parties, which scored major political gains in a November 2003 general election, partly due to the government's stance on Iraq, have slammed the dispatch as clearly unconstitutional and demanded Koizumi's resignation. Democratic Party of Japan leader Naoto Kan (who resigned recently because of pension scandal) urged the Prime Minister to step down, claiming he has violated the Constitution by dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq.　In a tortured attempt to evade the war-renouncing clause, the Iraq Dispatch Law only allows troops to be sent to non-combat zones, a concept Koizumi himself concedes, is impossible to define while sporadic attacks continue in the country.

Japan's older generation - the only population ever to pay for their government's atrocities with nuclear devastation - is particularly critical of any move away from pacifism. The long time of peace and prosperity they experienced after World War II until the present is bountiful. They say that instead of going to war we should be doing our utmost to promote peace in the world. There are other ways to contribute. But the younger politicians who have risen to power in recent years know there are limits to the influence Japan's traditional foreign policy tools can bring among those nations with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. A poll　conducted last year showed that 90 percent of Diet members under the age of 50 supported revising the Constitution. Koizumi reportedly has plans to revise sections by late 2005, which will require a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament.　Expect a storm to come.

Censorship of Japanese History Textbooks

(Part II) 

              In an article that appeared in the Shukan Kinyobi (May 20, 2003), the Vice President of the Council of History Teachers enumerated the High School History textbooks, Geography textbooks, and Civics textbook that were censored, revised, and certified by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. Below are some of the issues that he disclosed.

1. Rejecting the words, "Invasion of Afghanistan," and revising to "Ground Assault"

According to the Vice President of the Council of History Teachers, most of the texts submitted for certification in politics and economics during the year 2003 treat the U. S. attack on Afghanistan. On the grounds that it was an assault "based on UN resolution," the certifiers did not accept the term "attack" and revised it to "ground assault," "military assault," and the like. The main issue is that even if opinions differ on whether the attack on Afghanistan was based on UN resolution, the unilateral revision of the texts, imposing only the government's view (and disregarding the authors’ view) not only damages the freedom of speech and thought of the History authors; it also damages the high school students' right to learn. The Vice President of the Council of History Teachers is apprehensive that if this sort of certification is allowed then, in the　next round of certification the government will probably not accept the term "invasion" for the 2003 US unjust aggression against　Iraq. This is a new second coming of the "aggression/advance" issue that was previously fought out　with respect to textbook treatment of Japan's attack on China in the fifteen　year war.

Again, in a passage concerning the invasion of Afghanistan, "it was also the role of ally Japan to urge second thoughts on arrogant America." The word, "America" was replaced by "great power” thus obscuring U.S. responsibility. In the caption for the illustration at the head of the same page, the words "without armed force" were deleted from the statement "Japan contributes without armed force to UN-centered peace." Toeing the U.S. line, the Ministry openly supported an "international contribution" with armed force.

2. From the term “Self-Defense Forces” to “military organization”

The Ministry approved the passage; "For 50 years it kept preventing the standing military organization from going off on its own." History Scholars who are against the approval of the Ministry say that this passage ran the "risk of misleading students to think that the Self-Defense Force is a standing military organization. This is a startling view that reverses the fact that the Self-Defense Force is indeed a standing military organization.

From the revisions that we have seen above it is very obvious that the latest High School History textbooks that underwent revisions, as required by the Ministry, reflect the Japanese government support for the Bush administration’s support on the war of terror.

3. Championing the emperor

Part of a passage, "From abroad came strong doubt about and criticism of the issue of the war responsibility of the Showa emperor" was edited by deleting "criticism". The certifiers probably want to say that overseas there was also praise for the emperor.

4. Leaving the Japanese army's responsibility for 'military comfort women' vague

In a passage, "During wartime…in　areas Japan invaded, the Japanese army rounded up many women by force," the subject?"the Japanese army"?was deleted; the phrase "the Japanese Army’s comfort women" was revised to "comfort women" on the ground that the term was "not in general use".

5. A Japanese History text that doesn't mention 'comfort women'

There is already a certified Japanese history B　text that does not mention the issue of "comfort women".

6. Eliminating the phrase 'Asia-Pacific War' to “Pacific War”

Over the last dozen years the phrase "Asia-Pacific War" instead of "Pacific War" has come to be used more frequently. The phrase "Pacific War" cannot represent the entire war correctly: it calls to mind only the war between Japan and the U.S., and Japan's aggression against Asia disappears from consciousness. The　Ministry, however, asserted that phrase, “Asia-Pacific War,” is "not in general use" and changed it to "Pacific War" throughout. (Concrete names of the books censored by the Japanese government lately can be acquired through the article written by the Vice President of the Council of History Teachers, as appeared on the ZNET/Japan)

     Since the 1980s, sharp debates　have centered on Japanese government censorship of school textbook treatments of　colonialism and war. The treatment of such issues as the Nanking Massacre, the　Japanese military comfort women, and Japanese use of Chinese and Korean wartime slave labor, etc., have been contentious not only in Japan but also in neighboring countries of East Asia that were colonized or occupied by Japanese forces. Sad to say, some of these historical facts are presented in a way that they are misleading to learners. Thus, the Vice President of the Council of History Teachers urges the public to be vigilant on the government practice of censorship as well as activities of groups like the Society of New History Textbooks.