tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post4236846022531191899..comments2023-10-20T18:03:01.821+09:00Comments on GlobalTalk 21: Will the DPJ Push Mr. Ozawa's Legal Argument and Normal Country Inclinations to Their Ultimate Conclusion?Jun Okumurahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00291478225274759649noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-41904347219483366432007-10-05T10:29:00.000+09:002007-10-05T10:29:00.000+09:00Matt: It's always good to hear from you, and I swe...<A HREF="http://japan.shadowofiris.com/" REL="nofollow">Matt</A>: It's always good to hear from you, and I swear it's not because you have such nice things to say about me.<BR/><BR/><I>"In a world where constitutions were actually respected, Japan wouldn't be involved at all. (Or would be because they'd have changed the constitution by now.)"</I><BR/><BR/>As an ex-bureaucrat and fan of Lewis Carroll, I am eminently qualified simultaneously to agree and disagree with this statement. As an obsessive-compulsive, I am compelled to tell you why. (Skip the rest if you know post-WW II Japanese history.)<BR/><BR/>A singular mixture of idealism and fear on the part of the Occupational authorities gave Japan the most unusual Peace Constitution (1947), and the majority of the Japanese population welcomed it for more or less the same reasons. But the Cold War arrived, giving the U.S. second thoughts about the efficacy of the new arrangement, a sentiment shared, if in many cases for other reasons by Japanese conservatives. The resultant distance from almost the very beginning between the text and the need/desire to rearm has continued to widen over the years, and this has led to a willingness on the part of what is now a majority or a very large plurality (depending on when, and by whom, the question is asked) of the Japanese people to "consider in a forward-looking manner" amendment of Article 9. However, I hazard to guess that only a small portion of the Japanese public will accept as the consequence of any new formulation for Article 9, say, the kind of role that the German military plays in (admittedly) NATO-focused operations beyond its borders. Barring any dramatic changes in Japan's national security profile – say, a catastrophic military situation in the Middle East that threatens to cut off for years a significant flow of oil from that region – changes have been and will continue to be painfully incremental. <BR/><BR/>Thus, Japan has evolved a Peace Constitution woven out of text and custom that is every bit as clear and consistent, and respected in practice, as the written form to which the modern world has become so accustomed. It is a constitution, a consensus of sorts, that even Shoichi Nakagawa, were he to become Prime Minister, would be hard put to alter substantially.<BR/><BR/>Is this state of affairs restrictive? Yes. Is it odd? Most certainly. And it does confine to the smallest of increments changes in Japan's approach to the external projection of military power. But is it bad for Japan? I've become more inclined to reserve my judgment on that, particularly in light of the experience of the post-Cold War years and even more clearly this millennium, when the global community has so often been ineffectual, ineffective, or even counterproductive in that respect.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of your agreement, I have great respect for what Mr. Ozawa is doing, since his words and actions appears to be consistent with his past pronouncements and revealed inclinations, and not merely something adopted for political expedience; this is more than <I>seikyoku</I> (the political game) to him. But you can understand from the above argument why I believe that the LDP position is not necessarily inferior constitution- or otherwise than Mr. Ozawa's. And as a political move, you can tell from my original post that I don't think that it will work out as well for the DPJ as they hoped for when they staked out that position. At best, I do not believe that it will do much to hasten the timing of the next Lower House general election.Jun Okumurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00291478225274759649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-21251046712315200542007-10-04T21:27:00.000+09:002007-10-04T21:27:00.000+09:00Your entire article is exceptionally well written ...Your entire article is exceptionally well written and explains the situation quite well.<BR/><BR/>You state:<BR/>"I think that the practical consideration will prevail with the safety-first Japanese public. Unless the 800,000 gallon controversy spills over into operations beyond USS Kitty Hawk, or even the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I believe that the LDP position will prevail in the court of public opinion."<BR/><BR/>I don't want to force an opinion out of you, but I'll give you my own (flawed and fallible) opinion.<BR/><BR/>In a world where constitutions were actually respected, Japan wouldn't be involved at all. (Or would be because they'd have changed the constitution by now.)<BR/><BR/>However, given that we are not in such a world and we have to work with the strange arguments we're given over what is constitutional and not, I would think Ozawa's position is far superior to that offered by the LDP.<BR/><BR/>It's not only based on principles, but it allows Japan to sort of snub both the LDP and America, thus showing their independence, yet at the same time to actually up the ante so to speak, to show more commitment and not less. Even those who lean towards the so called "left" support the UN, don't they?<BR/><BR/>Now whether involvement with UN peacekeeping missions is a good idea, and whether helping out in Afghanistan is a good idea or not, well that's a whole other cup of tea ...<BR/><BR/>... thank you for a great post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com