When we last left off with Japan's debate on completing its sixty-year journey towards democratic normalization by asserting its right to offensive military action, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi himself was calling for the reconsideration of Article 9, the pacifist keystone to Japan's American-authored postwar constitution. Before the definitive rise of Islamist terrorism in 2001, a decade of post-Cold War geopolitics quickly transformed Pax Americana into an undertaking of disproportionate military responsibility favorable to lesser democratic nations that was suddenly followed out of habit and comfort rather than necessity. Three years into the war on terror and dictatorship, the reluctance of many free countries — legal or cultural — to use the force of arms for the greater cause is now a direct impedence to international security. Japan's conversation has been proceeding for months, and even the pragmatists from Foggy Bottom are applying a combination of encouragement and pressure:
Officials in the ruling coalition as well as the opposition camp clearly were caught off-guard by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's remark last week that war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution is becoming an obstacle to strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance. Since it was uttered by a senior Bush administration official known for his deep understanding of Japan, they fear it may negatively affect Japan-U.S. relations and ongoing debate in Japan on revisions to the Constitution.Armitage also told Nakagawa that while Washington supported Tokyo's moves to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, any nation with that status must be ready to deploy military force in the interests of the international community. Unless it is prepared to do that, Armitage said it would be difficult for Japan to become a permanent member.
Article 9 is interpreted to mean that Japan is banned from exercising the right to collective self-defense, which the ruling Liberal Democratic Party wants to change.
It is also the LDP that has resisted Japan's political tendency towards benign fence-sitting — Article 9 was originally intended to etch Japanese postwar shame into law to help prevent a resurgence of militarism. Supreme Commander of Allied Powers' lesson worked almost too well: pacifism directs Japanese inaction almost as strongly as ambivalence and nihilism has left much of Western Europe largely defenseless. How would the free world benefit from each democratic nation assuming a truly corresponding share of military responsibility, instead of relying on the eternally dutiful United States? Immeasurably. The Yomiuri Shimbun offers a rebuke to reactionaries:
Article 9, after all, is the reason Japan gives for not being able to defend the United States from attack, even though the United States is obliged to defend Japan. Article 9 is the reason why Japan cannot take part in international contingencies by exercising collective self-defense. And Article 9 is the primary reason why Japan cannot stand shoulder to shoulder as an equal partner of the United States in the bilateral alliance.If such restrictions are not impediments to the alliance then what is? More importantly, if Japanese lawmakers do not see the inherent problems of constitutional restrictions on the bilateral security treaty, then the alliance really is in peril — it cannot be sustained if the constitutional status quo lasts forever. If Armitage's comments had any deeper meaning, it was surely to drive home that point.
...Clearly, Japan's security debate continues to be mired in self-imposed taboos--even though the nation has in recent years loosened the pacifist grip on discussions of defense issues. But in order for Japanese lawmakers to transform Japan into a more "normal" nation — with a greater role in the U.S.-Japan alliance and international security affairs — they will have to confront the issues headon. If Armitage's remarks spark such a candid debate, then it will have been worth all the trouble.
We're best to remember what John Stuart Mill said about those who enjoy freedom at the "exertions of men better than [themselves]." There is no substantive reason why Japan — or any other free country — shouldn't equip and conduct itself to match the relative strength of the United States. Global security isn't a contest. Americans prefer able colleagues to lackeys, reserving their respect for the efficacious.