Spotlight On...
Hot Topics in East Asia
Former Ambassador Gregg Visits I.U.
Hot Topics in East Asia...
Japan: New Nationalism or Seeking Normalcy?
by Jacques L. Fuqua
Recent trends in Japanese security policy discussions seem to indicate a subtle, but growing shift away from the traditional post-WWII adherence to its "Peace Constitution." For example, in mid-February 2003, Shigeru Ishiba, Director General of the Japan Defense Agency, indicated that Japan had the constitutional right to launch a preemptive strike against North Korea if Japan felt threatened. This shift has not gone unnoticed by those who follow developments in Japan’s security policies. For example, Eugene A. Matthews, a former Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes ".while the United States has spent the last few years focusing almost exclusively on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terror, another formidable challenge-rising nationalism-has taken hold in one of America’s closest allies. This development could have an alarming consequence: namely, the rise of a militarized, assertive, and nuclear-armed Japan, which would be a nightmare for the country’s neighbors."
There has been an increased effort among those following Japan’s defense policies to measure the potential long-term impact of Japan’s endeavors to reassess its security posture in light of the threat it confronts from North Korea and in light of its broader responsibilities to the international community in a post 9/11 world. Key to Japan’s security reassessment is two rather controversial issues: 1) Article 9 of the constitution, which renounces war as an implement of its statecraft; and 2) Japan’s dispatch of its Self-Defense Forces to participate in overseas peace-keeping operations. One such article appears in the Nov/Dec 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled "Japan’s New Nationalism," written by Eugene A. Matthews.
The above article contends that Japan’s nationalism and militarism are synonymous. These concepts, however, differ markedly in scope and focus: militarism is not an inescapable result of nationalism. The article also asserts that unless Japan’s growing nationalism is closely watched, in this case by the U.S., Japan’s single bilateral security partner, its budding nationalism might potentially grow into something more ominous.
It may be more accurate to characterize current domestic debate in Japan regarding the security issues it confronts as the natural growth process a sovereign nation undergoes as it re-defines for itself its national interests and foreign policy, rather than some dangerous form of militarization. Security for any nation is its ability to manage to an acceptable level the elements of insecurity it confronts, thus ensuring the safety of the state and its citizenry. Presently, Japan is undertaking a re-evaluation of its own security concerns and its foreign policies in light of world events, particularly after the 1998 North Korean test-fired rocket that flew into Japanese sovereign territory and the subsequent North Korean claims of its highly enriched uranium program and successful re-processing of spent plutonium fuel rods.
The steps Japan has undertaken to ensure its security are both prudent and natural. I would argue what might be considered unnatural is the expectation that Japan would fail to do anything knowing the potential threat it confronts. Japan’s plan to purchase PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles) is a necessary step; PAC-3 is a high/medium advanced surface-to-air guided missile air defense system. The PAC-3 missile systems, in tandem with SM3 missile-equipped Aegis destroyers, represent the nation’s defense against the threat posed by North Korea and its hallmark brinksmanship diplomacy, which has in the past several years evolved into "missile" diplomacy. Similarly, current U.S.-Japan discussions regarding development of a joint missile defense system, talks which began as early as 1998, are again, a substantive and prudent defensive measure. Neither of these measures, however, rises to a level that warrants concern over a re-emerging jingoistic Japan. They are defensive and responsive in nature, not weapons with a first-strike capability.
While some Japanese politicians have opined that Japan has the right to develop nuclear weapons, this is not a likely course for the Government of Japan to pursue. It is not in Japan’s national interests to do so. Japan presently, for $4.5 billion in Host Nation Support, leverages a $401.3 billion U.S. defense budget that includes protection under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. This is a more economical and strategically sound approach than undertaking development of its own nuclear program. (As an aside, it is difficult to conceive of a Japanese citizenry that would support a policy of a nuclear Japan. There is still a great deal of credence given to the country’s "Three Non-Nuclear Principles"- not to possess, produce or allow the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan - and the annual peace ceremonies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, all of which point to a broader aversion to the nuclearization of Japan, mitigating against such happenstance.)
Domestic debate as to whether or not Japan should consider revising its Peace Constitution in order to more fully shoulder its share of international peacekeeping and other operations can also be considered part of this natural evolution of reassessing security concerns. Japan is a member of the global community: its security is impacted by world events and conversely, it is expected to share in the heavy lifting of international operations. While it might be convenient to attempt to draw parallels between current domestic debates and Japan’s past, it simply wouldn’t be accurate. First, the mere fact that there is discourse as to the future of the constitution and its impact on Japan’s security is in itself significant; any proposed constitutional changes would likely be subject to a referendum. Also different are the nation’s governing apparatus and form of government. Most importantly, the same set of circumstances and motivations for the courses of action pursued by early 20th century Japan no longer exists.
Debate over the future of the Peace Constitution and Article 9 can be condensed into a single thought offered by noted Japanese TV and print journalist Ms. Yukie Kudo who called this debate the search for a “normal” Japan, which according to Ms. Kudo is a “pragmatic approach to the world.” Matthews alludes to this point in his article, but falls short of capturing its essence: this is not a contributing factor to the growth of nationalism; rather it is the core of the argument itself. This pragmatic approach to domestic security and international affairs is at the heart of much of the domestic debate presently taking place. In fact, one might argue that within East Asia itself, a broader trend toward pragmatism is evolving. The six-party talks, irrespective of their lack of substantive results to date, marks a decided shift in the heretofore bilateral approach to many security issues in the region. Japan of course plays an important role in these talks.
Japan’s recent signing of the Tokyo Declaration with the nations of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is also demonstrative of a pragmatic shift toward becoming a “normal” nation. In order to satisfy U.S. and international expectations, Japan has, at times, had to trade the idealism of its Peace Constitution and Article 9 for a more pragmatic approach: ratification of the PKO law; dispatching the SDF to Iraq, the first time since WWII the Japanese military will operate in an active war zone; dispatching Maritime Self-Defense Force vessels to the Indian Ocean to assist the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan; and to a certain degree, although a very necessary step, development of the most recent version of the Defense Guidelines, which expand the logistical support Japan provides to the U.S. during hostilities. The definition of “areas surrounding Japan” within which Japan might provide logistical support was left intentionally vague in order to provide flexibility, hence Japan’s support of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.
This trend also has implications domestically. For example, for the first time since the end of WWII, the Government of Japan plans to develop the first completely domestically produced aircraft. Dubbed the PX project, a replacement for its current inventory of P3-C patrol aircraft, it is a project being undertaken through a consortium of Japanese firms: Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Fuji Heavy Industries are responsible for the design of the body, while the maritime Self-Defense Force’s Technical Research and Development Institute and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries are focusing on engine design.
While the above can be considered a process of healthy discourse, I did find one point that Matthews made troubling. He hints that the U.S. should consider the practice of directly engaging Japanese politicians outside the Government of Japan to address some of its concerns or perhaps to influence the domestic debate. I can think of nothing more potentially damaging to the bilateral relationship, particularly in a society where personal and organizational relationships comprise the core of social fabric and are built over years of trust and cooperation. To be sure, U.S. Embassy officials regularly engage in discussions with politicians, both inside and outside the ruling coalition, but not for purposes of influencing domestic issues-once U.S. officials engage in such practices they lose their credibility as honest and trusted brokers, potentially adversely impacting issues the U.S. considers of national importance.
In summary, there exists no basis for undue concern regarding the present domestic debates in Japan. They represent a natural and useful reassessment of security concerns confronting Japan as a sovereign nation. And this reassessment, far from being the first potential step down a slippery slope, is a move toward what many Japanese see as a pragmatic and "normal" Japan.
Former Ambassador Gregg Visits I.U.
EASC sponsored a visit by former Ambassador to Korea Donald Phinney Gregg in November 2003. While he was in Indiana, Ambassador Gregg gave several talks, culminating in a lecture which was open to the public and held at the Buskirk-Chumley Theater in downtown Bloomington. Through a description of his own experiences in dealing with both North and South Korea, Ambasssador Gregg illuminated how various diplomatic decisions which have been made regarding Korea have impacted the current state of affairs there.
Following graduation from Williams College in 1951, Ambassador Gregg joined the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and over the next quarter century was assigned to Japan, Burma, Vietnam and Korea. He was seconded to the National Security Council staff in 1979, where he was in charge of intelligence activities and Asian policy affairs. In 1982, he was asked by the then Vice President George Bush to become his national security advisor. He then retired from the CIA, and was awarded its highest decoration, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal. During his six years with Vice President Bush, Ambassador Gregg travelled to 65 countries.
Between 1980 and 1989, Ambassador Gregg also served as a professorial lecturer at Georgetown University, where he taught a graduate level workshop entitled “Force and Diplomacy.” Starting in September 1989, he served as Ambassador to Korea for 3 1/2 years. Prior to his departure from South Korea in 1993, Ambassador Gregg received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, an honorary degree from Sogang University, and a decoration from the Prime Minister of Korea.
In March 1993, Ambassador Gregg retired from a 43-year career in the United States government, and assumed his current position as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Recent awards include an honorary degree from Green Mountain College (1996), the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service (2001) and Williams College’s Kellogg Award for career achievement (2001).
Last updated:2/17/2004
URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~easc/newsletter/
Comments: 
Copyright 2004, The Trustees of Indiana University