On November 21, 2018, a panel event entitled “Japan as a Normal Country? Retrospect and Prospect” was held at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. This event was sponsored by the Centre for the Study of Global Japan, and co-sponsored by the Consulate General of Japan in Toronto and Balsillie School of International Affairs.
Professor Louis Pauly, the Interim Director of the Centre for the Study of Global Japan and J. Stefan Dupré Distinguished Professor of Political Economy at the University of Toronto, opened the event by delivering a welcome address. He noted the ongoing debate among the Japanese public, leaders, and other officials regarding whether Japan can or should become a so-called “normal country.” To understand this question, it is first necessary to consider in what ways, if at all, Japan might even be considered “abnormal” or unusual when compared to other societies. In the context of international security, Japan has often been branded as “abnormal” due to its postwar constitution. Specifically, Article 9 of the Japanese constitution relinquishes Japan’s right as a sovereign nation to initiate war with other states and prohibits Japan from possessing offensive military capabilities. In fact, due to this provision, Japan can only maintain a Self Defense Force (SDF), which since its inception in 1954, has been generally limited in its operations.
Following Professor Pauly’s remarks, the first panelist was introduced. Professor Yoshihide Soeya, a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Keio University, discussed the evolution of Japan’s security legislation. He highlighted new changes to this legislation in 2015 under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. This legislation gave the Japanese Self Defense Forces (JSDF) the ability to fight overseas for the first time in Japan’s post-war history. Even with this unprecedented exception, the overseas mobilization of the JSDF had to satisfy very strict criteria. For instance, Japan or its close ally must be under attack, Japan’s survival must be threatened, or there must be no other appropriate means to repel the attack. Furthermore, in the event of overseas mobilization, any use of force by the SDF must also be limited to the minimum threshold necessary to provide defense to Japan and/or its allies.
With regards to Japan’s security measures, Professor Soeya also pointed out that it is crucial to differentiate between an “internationalist” and “nationalist” viewpoint on this matter. Outside Japan, some assume that the country wishes to become a military power, thereby adopting a progressively nationalist approach to its foreign affairs and to the “normal” country debate. Professor Soeya suggests that one must instead interpret Japan’s security decisions through an internationalist lens. He notes that the source of Japan’s abnormality lies in the country’s own constitution, echoing Professor Pauly’s discussion of Article 9. Professor Soeya notes that interpretations of Article 9 are continuously evolving, as Japanese bureaucrats seek new ways to explain the country’s actions abroad through “bureaucratic acrobatics.” Professor Soeya continued by discussing Japan’s right to collective self-defense by noting the persistent debate regarding how and under what circumstances the country can exercise this right. Views on this matter greatly diverge, due to competing interpretations of Japan’s constitution, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, and the United Nations Charter; the latter of which can be understood to support Japan’s decision regarding collective self-defense. While 2015 marked a chance in Japan’s ability to now exercise its right to collective self-defense and come to the aid of its allies, Professor Soeya notes that hesitation remains among the Japanese population about becoming entangled in conflicts abroad. Professor Soeya argues that Japan has become increasingly “normal” as time progresses, but not necessarily “normal” enough to tackle issues in today’s constantly evolving international system.
The panel continued with Professor Masayuki Tadokoro, a Professor of International Relations and Law at Keio University. Professor Tadokoro began by discussing Japan’s two main postwar institutions: the 1947 Constitution and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. The constitution was intended to limit Japan’s military and contain any future aggression. The security treaty provides a framework in which the U.S. can hold military bases throughout the Japanese archipelago, as a part of the U.S.’ pledge to provide defense to Japan in the event of an attack by another nation. Interestingly, as the Cold War began, policymakers Washington actively sought to encourage Japanese militarization within the framework of the security treaty, as a means of making Japan a stronger anti-communist partner in the East Asia region. However, Japan was unable to pursue this suggestion due to its constitution. Over the following several decades, the U.S continued to defend Japan and maintain security and stability in the region. Now, in the post-Cold War era, there have been renewed debates in Japan regarding possible constitutional amendments and Japan’s increased reliance on its American ally. However, the post-Cold War era has also witnessed uncertainties with respect to the U.S.’ previous commitment to protecting Japan under the bilateral security treaty.
Professor Tadokoro discussed current public opinion in Japan on security policies and possible constitutional amendments. He noted that most Japanese people remain in favour of policies in the status quo, and hold a positive view of the U.S. and the bilateral alliance. As a result, Professor Tadokoro suggested that any constitutional amendments will continue to be unlikely, insofar as public opinion remains. Despite strong public opinion in favor of the U.S on the part of the Japanese citizenry, Professor Tadokoro also acknowledges that American reliability today is concerning to Japanese policymakers. Today, frequent discussions amongst policymakers are revisiting the questions of whether the U.S. remains a stable and reliable ally, and whether Japan should assume a greater independent military role to reduce its reliance on the U.S.
The third panelist was David A. Welch, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo and the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) Chair of Global Security at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. Professor Welch also argued that Japan’s abnormality is historically linked to Article 9, noting that no other country in the international community has imposed as many limitations on its own military as Japan has over the past several decades. However, since Japan expanded the realm of its actions abroad, Professor Welch suggested that Japan has arguably already begun the process of becoming more “normalized,” meaning that its supposed abnormality might largely be in the past. Although, Professor Welch also recognized that such developments may not be entirely welcomed by certain countries and actors. For instance, Japan’s neighbours – China and South Korea – remain strongly opposed to changes to Article 9 due to historical conflicts. The Japanese people themselves also continue to be wary of any constitutional changes, largely embracing the postwar constitution. Furthermore, Professor Welch noted that Japan has also gradually normalized its behaviour in other equally important respects. Examples of this include participating in peacekeeping operations abroad and relinquishing mercantilist policies towards the global economy, as evidenced by Japan’s recent support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The last speaker on the panel was Consul General Takako Ito, the current Consul General of Japan in Toronto. She noted that rather than referring to Japan as “abnormal,” as is often the case in current academic discourses, it would perhaps be more appropriate to call Japan “unique” due to its distinctive postwar constitution. She added that regardless of the limitations faced by the SDF, it has nevertheless managed to make significant contributions to maintaining stability in the international community, notably by assisting in disaster relief efforts both within and outside of Japan. She concluded her remarks by noting that it is possible for the Japanese constitution to be amended one day, or for some of the current self-imposed limitations on the SDF to be removed in the future. However, constitutional changes would only be possible if it was supported by a clear majority of the Japanese people, and thus far, all constitutional revisions have been highly debated. Consul General Ito notes that in this regard, Japan shares some commonalities with Canada, as both countries have faced intense debates and challenges with regards to amending their respective constitutions, mainly due to the multitude of different political opinions in both societies.
Leah Gibbins is a fourth-year student pursuing majors in International Relations and Political Science at the University of Toronto. She is currently serving as an event reporter for the Synergy Journal.
Feaven Abidta is a fourth-year student who is pursuing a degree in International Relations and Political Science at the University of Toronto. She is the co-lead editor of the East Asia Section of the Synergy Journal and her major academic interests include Japanese foreign and security policy.
Leave a Reply