EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

Japan’s militarization

Japan has recently alarmed its neighbors by taking a series of moves that suggest the world’s third-largest economy is rushing its comeback as a military powerhouse. 

Since the early 1990s, Japan has slowly but steadily proceeded toward militarization despite the constraints posed by its so-called peace constitution. 

Dubbed the “no-war” clause, Article 9 of the constitution renounces war and the right to use force as a means of resolving international disputes. It also declares that Japan will never maintain land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential.

Yet the country has managed to expand its military capacities and broaden the scope of activity for its Self-Defense Forces. For this, Japanese policymakers circumvented the constitutional roadblocks by continually revising their interpretations of Article 9. 

Now, Japan’s major political parties are pushing for a radical reinterpretation of the clause or an outright amendment of it as part of their bid to overhaul the nation’s security policy and become a “normal state.”

Last week, a committee under the Japanese prime minister released a report calling for a reinterpretation of the constitution to recognize Japan’s right to exercise collective self-defense, the hallmark of a normal state.

Thus far, the Tokyo government’s official stance on the issue has been that the peace constitution does not recognize Japan’s right of collective self-defense, although it is set out in the United Nations Charter.

According to this view, Japan cannot use armed forces against a third country that is attacking an ally, for instance, the United States, while in contrast, under a mutual defense treaty, the U.S. is obliged to use force against a country that attacks Japan.

The panel’s report notes that as this conventional interpretation undercuts Japan’s value as a security partner, Tokyo must review it to enhance security cooperation with the U.S. and other allies.

Coming from a panel put directly under the prime minister, the report is widely seen as signaling the beginning of the Japanese government’s campaign to give a whole new spin to the no-war clause.

The report caused concern in Seoul as it raised the possibility of Japan deploying its troops in South Korea in the event of North Korean aggression against the South. To many Koreans, this is as nightmarish as a North Korean invasion of the South.

For Seoul’s policymakers, a more serious worry may be the move by Japan’s conservative political parties to amend Article 9. They have put forward revision of the clause as a campaign pledge for the next general election. 

The Liberal Democratic Party declared in April that it would amend the constitution to empower Japan to exercise collective self-defense. 

The Osaka Restoration Association, a right-wing political party led by Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, a rising star in Japanese politics, said it would put the revision of the no-war clause to a referendum.

Last month, Japanese lawmakers made another move that sounded alarm bells for Korea and other neighbors. In revising the Atomic Energy Basic Law to set up an independent nuclear regulatory agency, they rewrote a clause to add “national security” to the uses of nuclear energy.

The addition was made without any public discussion, spawning the suspicions that Japanese lawmakers colluded to pave the way for Japan to produce nuclear weapons. 

Japan’s impetus for security policy reform comes from the perceived threats posed by an increasingly assertive China and a nuclearized North Korea. This is understandable, if not acceptable. 

Yet Japan’s reaction to these threats cannot be taken for granted as the country is not trusted by its neighbors. Korea and other countries in the region believe Japan has not overcome the imperial impulse that led it to colonize its neighbors and stage a devastating international war. 

They note that Japan has not yet sincerely repented for its responsibility for World War II. Japanese politicians frequently visit the Yasukuni Shrine which enshrines a number of Class A war criminals. They also have no qualms about rationalizing Japan’s aggression and brutal colonial rule. 

Japan’s militarization will escalate an arms race in the region. To prevent this, countries in the region should be able to set up a collective security system like NATO. 

Yet since a NATO-like structure in this region is still a remote possibility, Seoul needs to reassess Japan’s strategic intentions and recalibrate its own security policy based on the region’s changing security dynamics.

Green light to Jeju base

The Supreme Court has put an end to the drawn-out dispute over the construction of a naval base on Jeju Island by ruling that the Ministry of National Defense has proceeded with the project in a lawful way.

The top court’s final verdict has cleared a big obstacle to the project, ensuring that the construction of the important naval base will go ahead as planned.

The lawsuit was filed by residents of Gangjeong Village on the island in 2009 to stop the base construction, which they claimed would damage the area that has been designated a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO.

They took issue with a minor procedural flaw that the Ministry of National Defense allegedly made in the process of approving the project. The top court affirmed that there was nothing illegal about the way the ministry pushed ahead with the project.

Now that the final decision has been made, the villagers should bury the hatchet and cooperate in building the naval base. They should not forget the harm they have done to the nation by filing a suit three years ago.

Their legal action provided a good opportunity for a wide array of political groups to gather and stage violent protests against the government. The peaceful village soon turned into a battleground between protesters and police.

Protestors included not just village residents and environmental activists but opposition party members, labor activists, civic group leaders, dissident students, pro-North Korea activists and “professional” protestors who make a living by participating in rallies.

Politically motivated protesters offered all kinds of nonsensical reasons to oppose the project for opposition’s sake. Their primary aim was to deal a political blow to the government by stopping the project. 

Due to their occupation of the project site, construction work had to be halted for 74 days. Such an incident should not be repeated. 

The naval base was first proposed by President Roh Moo-hyun in 2005. He foresaw its strategic importance. Yet many politicians who worked for him and advocated the project during his term changed stance and led the rally against it. Such opportunistic behavior should be punished by voters.

Now the base has become strategically much more important than in 2005. Tensions are rising in Northeast Asia as major players are eager to beef up their sea power amid growing competition over maritime territory and natural resources in deep water.