Abe’s Japan sliding away from pacifism

In 1960, Japan’s then-Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi rammed through legislation to strengthen the nation’s military alliance with the United States. He did so despite strong objection from many voters, hundreds of thousands of whom poured onto the streets in protest. More than half a century later, Kishi’s grandson Shinzo Abe is at it again.

Two weeks ago, Mr Abe secured Lower House approval for 11 Bills that would make it marginally easier for Japanese troops to fight alongside their US allies. As things stand, Japan’s armed forces — officially still called the Self Defence Forces because of restrictions imposed by the pacifist constitution — can defend their nation only if it is directly under attack.

As in his grandfather’s day, there were noisy demonstrations outside parliament and commotion inside. The vote was passed after the opposition walked out of the chamber.

Now, the Bills must be ratified by the Upper House, a process likely to take two controversial months. Even if the Upper House rejects them, the Lower House, where Mr Abe’s ruling coalition enjoys a hefty majority, is almost certain to drive them through.

Mr Abe has neither the votes nor the public backing to amend the Constitution outright. Adopted under the American occupation in 1947, it can be changed only after a referendum.

So Mr Abe has gone for second best by reinterpreting it instead. Under the new reading, disliked by constitutional experts, Japan will be allowed to engage in “collective self-defence”. That would enable it to come to the aid of allies — which include the US — in the case of any conflict that may have an imminent impact on Japan’s security.

Mr Abe has done a lousy job at convincing the public that such changes are necessary. Mr Yoichi Funabashi, chairman of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, says the administration is bogged down in detail and has failed to make an emotional case.

It has been deliberately vague — one may say dishonest — in spelling out the conditions under which troops can offer logistical support to allies, or even fight alongside them. The public fears that Japan will be dragged into reckless US adventures, such as the invasion of Iraq.

WHY ABE IS PRESSING AHEAD

Though it has never been set out explicitly, the main motive for the security changes is China (although an unstable nuclear-armed North Korea is also stiffening resolve). Washington, for decades frustrated at what it regards as Japan’s freeriding on American military spending, has long pressed Tokyo to take more responsibility for its own defence.

Like his grandfather, Mr Abe is not giving Washington what it wants out of love for America. He wants to strengthen the alliance for reasons of national interest.

His grandfather, too, was determined to renew the US-Japan security treaty because he thought Japan would be safer as a result.

Conservatives such as Mr Abe, and his grandfather before him, harbour resentment towards Washington for imposing what they see as victor’s justice. Kishi, who was in the wartime Cabinet, was once arrested by US occupying forces as a suspected Class “A”war criminal.

Despite such reservations, conservatives still regard the alliance with Washington as the bedrock of Japan’s security and prosperity.

Mr Abe, again in common with the grandfather he idolises, believes he is doing the right thing. Though his popularity has dropped sharply as a result of the national security Bills, he will press ahead regardless.

Kishi did so in the face of tremendous political adversity. Protests were so large that Tokyo was deemed unsafe for the planned visit of then-US President Dwight Eisenhower. A few months after the security treaty was acrimoniously ratified, Kishi resigned.

Events today are not quite so dramatic. Opponents of the Bills, though many, are less vociferous. The media, shamefully, has mostly been cowed into silence by an administration that faces little serious parliamentary opposition.

Mr Abe has few challengers within his party, and is likely to remain in office until 2017. That would make him one of the country’s longest-serving Prime Ministers in recent memory.

Like his grandfather, he is a conviction politician. He will ignore public opinion if he has to. As well as national security Bills, he will restart nuclear power stations and sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership, policies that have lukewarm public support at best.

Despite falling popularity, he looks more or less unassailable. Unlike his grandfather, Mr Abe will get what he wants — and keep his job.

THE FINANCIAL TIMES

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Pilling is the Asia editor of The Financial Times.