Is Japan’s new military law really a radical policy shift?

Is Japan’s new military law really a radical policy shift?

In the wake of continued conflict over islands in the South China Sea and the need to better protect their interests abroad, the Japanese government has passed a law that allows troops to fight abroad for the first time since World War II.

Although Prime Minister Shinzo Abe promised that the new military law will not lead to over-involvement in foreign wars, the proposed bill was met with harsh resistance from many in the country.

Since World War Two, the Japanese constitution has barred the country from using force to resolve conflicts, except in cases of self-defense. This new legislation reinterprets Article 9 of Japan’s pacifist post-World War II constitution to allow the Japanese military to provide limited defense for its allies in conflicts abroad.

These changes will allow Japan, a critical ally for the United States in the region, to do more to protect both the United States as well as South Korea from future potential threats from North Korea.

However, there are strict conditions associated with the mobilization of troops. Japan or a close ally must be attacked, and the result must threaten Japan’s survival and pose a clear danger to its citizens. There must also be no other appropriate means available to repel the attack, and the use of force must be restricted to a necessary minimum.

Is the legislation a slippery slope?

The bill was met with criticism from many who worry about the potential for future Japanese entanglements abroad. Prime Minister Abe argued that the legislation was necessary to protect against threats from an increasingly belligerent China in the South China Sea as well as from North Korea, which remains unstable as ever.

Critics claim the change in interpretation of self-defense is a direct violation of the constitution, as well as a vague standard that the government can use to entangle Japan into far-flung foreign wars.

However, the critics may be missing the point. Japan already has well-equipped air, sea and land forces that have been participating more heavily in international military activities, such as supporting international anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa. In fact, the Japanese military has repeatedly stretched the definition of self-defense to send its military to conflicts all over the world, albeit without participating in actual combat.

Aside from the domestic concerns, China and South Korea, both of whom have suffered from Japan’s military expansionism in the past, have raised concerns with the new legislation, as well.

The legislation is especially worrisome to China, which recently moved to build a third airstrip on one of the disputed islands in the South China Sea, signaling its continued unwillingness to discuss the sovereignty of the islands. Although unlikely at this point, the potential for armed conflict for sovereign right of the islands also increases with the passing of the legislation.

Economic ramifications

To this point, the debate over the legislation has shielded Prime Minister Abe from questions regarding the nation’s struggling economy with Japan’s GDP shrinking in the most recent quarter as well as the potential for a double-dip recession.

Critics of the bill are quick to further point out that the economic rise of Japan since the end of World War II is due in large part to the decades of peace after the devastation brought on by the government during the first half of the 20th century.

Furthermore, with continued economic struggles and a crippling national deficit, there is real concern over the possible expansion of the military.

In fact, the Japanese Ministry of Defense, on the heels of this military expansion, submitted a $41.7 billion budget allocation request for the coming fiscal year, an increase of 2.2% from 2015.

Ultimately, the change in Japan’s law provides the United States with a stronger ally in the region and gives the Japanese government greater autonomy in protecting themselves in future conflicts. What remains to be seen is how the law will be used, and what impact foreign entanglements might have on an economy built on a foundation of peace.

About Author