Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military | Hacker News Reader

Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

nytimes.com

113 pointstomkwok71 comments

>The opposition’s obstructionist tactics delayed Mr. Abe’s victory until after 2 a.m., but could not prevent it.

Apparently the manner in which the vote was made was "trick play" like, quickly executed without warning, and caught opposition party members by surprise. I wasn't aware that such tactics were available.

the debates for it have been going on for weeks. They announced the vote at the beginning of the week.

Concretely, nothing could have prevented this outcome, because the Prime Minister's party has such a huge majority. There have been massive protests for a while now too, but that didn't seem to sway things as much.

A silver lining is that there seems to be a renewed interest in the constitution itself, It is a product of the American occupation, originally written in English, by US lawyers.

Though that might not change the good/badness of it's contents, it does smell a bit of colonialism.

It wasn't colonialism. Japan was occupied as the result of losing their own colonial war. The US was trying to prevent them from starting another one in the future.

It was written before we realized that we needed a stronger Japan in Asia after the Korean War I think.

And before that, they gave up on amending the constitution and settled for reinterpreting it because that would be less work. They basically hacked this into law. Why so desperate? And would the Obama administration really endorse this? Because that is what many "experts" are speculating. Basically no one knows, but it all just non-consensually moves forward. Isn't there a word for this? Tyranny? Definitely not democracy.

Also gathered constitutional experts, tasked them to research whether this would be constitutional (expecting them to say it was). When they concluded it wasn't, the gvt apologized for hiring the wrong folks, and moved on.

> And would the Obama administration really endorse this?

The U.S government has been trying to get Japan to amend its constitution since the late 60s. So yeah, I believe every administration up to this point would have endorsed this. The U.S government has been the one pushing Japan to militarize. They've been pushing for decades.

It's interesting to see how countries are reinterpreting laws to 'expand' the legal boundaries of conflict. Essentially, Japan now interprets 'self-defense' to no longer just mean defending the country when under attack, but to also include assisting allies in foreign countries. This sort of the same legal basis most countries are using to bomb targets in Syria (and Japan will probably use it too) - Iraq has asked the US and it's allies to help them defend themselves against ISIS, and bombing Syria to defeat ISIS counts as defending Iraq.

Everything is fair in love and war.

It's exactly the same argument Germany uses to send the Bundeswehr to Afghanistan. "Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt" - "Germany's freedom is defended at the Hindukush."

It paves way to start a war by ripping off legal framework first like "versailles treaty". Germany earns the trust to be responsible country to do peacekeeping overseas by reconciling with neighbours. Japan is different story. it hasn't even shown any gesture of sincere apology.

Somehow I don't think we're going to see the fabled Japanese mechas run over Europe and the US any time soon :)

This is not about the West, it's about the South China Sea. Chinese mechas will fight it out with Japanese ones.

Other than the millions of times the country has apologized and that it has raised an entire generation of peace loving anti-war people.

Abe and his crew are voted in by the older, xenophobic crowd, which remains the majority with Japan's dwindling population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements...

"Apology is a very important thing in Japan."

Huh, when I saw "same argument Germany" I thought you were gonna call back to the Third Reich's explaining various annexations / occupations as "defending the German people in those lands".

The political pressure and logical interests of self-defense are not surprising: one example being that a Japanese citizen was beheaded by ISIS earlier this year[1]. After such a shocking event, it seems very reasonable for the Japanese government to recognize the absurdity how of they are/were legally limited in their ability to respond.

[1] http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.640063

This law is about controlling oil wells in the middle east. Not about protecting a war otaku that went to play the soldier in Siria.

65% of the public oppose this, and only 38% support the PM now.

http://news.yahoo.co.jp/list?t=public_opinion_poll

I was out exploring Tokyo on my bike today and came up on a big group of protestors. When I asked someone what was going on, they said they were speaking out against the current party / leader, and that this was very uncommon to see in Japan (protesting).

I don't think I've ever been by Kokkai Gijido where there wasn't some group protesting something.

It's really ironic that the US, which literally wrote Japan's pacifist constitution essentially as the ultimate smackdown (not only did we beat you, but now you can never go to war ever again), is the one pushing to change it.

Our incentives have changed. At the time, the US was afraid of Japan (and justifiably so). But US military presence in Japan for the last half-century has meant that the Japan doesn't have to invest any money in security: they have instead invested that money in becoming one of the strongest economies in the world. And that has happened, to a large extent, at the expense of US taxpayers. The interdependence of our economies makes the US less afraid of Japan trying to take over the world, and the US economy is no longer strong enough to be propping up the economies of other nations.

> US military presence in Japan for the last half-century has meant that the Japan doesn't have to invest any money in security

Wikipedia seems to disagree with you [1]:

> In 1976, then Prime Minister Miki Takeo announced defense spending should be maintained within 1% of Japan's gross domestic product (GDP), a ceiling that was observed until 1986. As of 2005, Japan's military budget was maintained at about 3% of the national budget; about half is spent on personnel costs, while the rest is for weapons programs, maintenance and operating costs. As of 2013, Japan currently has the fifth largest defense budget in the world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#Budg...

Okay, I think my point was obvious, but if you want to be pedantic, yes, I should have said "Japan doesn't have to invest much money in security".

Yes, Japan does have the fifth largest defense budget in the world, but when you consider that the US defense budget it more than the defense budgets of the next 10 spenders combined, it's not really that much for such a large economy.

Also worth noting, the US maintains significant military presence in most of the world's top military-spending countries. For obvious reasons, China and Russia have very little military US military presence, but Saudi Arabia, the UK, France, Japan, Germany, and South Korea all have significant US military presence on their soil.

Thanks. I agree with your larger point, but wanted to clarify this detail, because I've seen people around the web saying that Japan actually has no security forces whatsoever.

To clarify your point, they don't. They have a self-defense force. They lack any serious offensive power since they focus on mostly defensive armaments.

There are also pretty big differences between Japan's SDF and a modern military. Only scraping the surface here, but members of the SDF can leave at any time, for any reason since it's a purely volunteer position. This weakens their military. They are afraid of being too hard on solidiers because if they are, they'll leave. This means you have an army of weak soliders who may not have the proper skills or training that an army like the U.S or China has.

This is why they need to be allowed to have a military. A country should be able to defend itself and the strongest defense, is a powerful and potent offense.

> A country should be able to defend itself and the strongest defense, is a powerful and potent offense.

Ugh. Thousands of Americans died in September 11, which is the obvious result of American military action in the Middle East, and thousands more died in the following wars.

You can't just go around killing people and assume that they're not going to attack you back. The best defense is a good foreign policy that avoids conflict in the first place.

Well said!

> The best defense is a good foreign policy that avoids conflict in the first place.

Like some kind of hypothetical agreement with Iran?

Yes. Keep in mind that currently anti-Western hostility in Iran are a direct result of American imperialism during the Cold War. The Iran nuclear deal framework wouldn't be necessary if the US hadn't tried to prevent democracy in Iran in the 1970s.

This is likely true, however there are a lot of strings if you pull on anything associated with the Cold War. Even without leaning on domino theory and assuming that Iran was better with a democratically elected government, I don't think it's conclusive to say that "If the US hadn't been involved in Iran, the world as a whole would have been a better place." I think Poland, Hungary, and a lot of Eastern Europe are probably happier without the Soviet Union?

As a friend in Jordan said, sometimes democracy isn't the best first step. And I'd argue that both Atatürk and Nasser played pretty close to the line as well.

While some people believe that, it's worth noting that the participants claimed that the pacifist clause was inserted by MacArthur on the request of the Japanese Prime Minister.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Co...

This is a good move and will help the US and its allies balance China.

It could also very easily spin out of control and increase instability in Asia.

Both of the above are true. China is getting more aggressive about control of the oceans near, and not so near, China. China has a territorial dispute with Japan over the islands south of Kyushu and northeast of Taiwan. China is also claiming some islands further south, in the South China Sea, but that disagreement is with Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam.

China's military parade last week was very anti-Japan. Of course, Japan did invade China during WWII. That's not being forgotten by the current leaders of China. China made a big point of their land-based anti-ship missiles, which were featured prominently in the parade.

i wonder if there is any significance they chose september 18th to re-militarize overseas action, being thats the date japan invaded china in 1931.

all else aside on the territorial disputes, i feel abe and his associates continually look past their genocides and atrocities in WWII, continually going to war memorials and celebrations of these same japanese that attacked US and committed the acts during WWII.

so china leaders definitely have a reason to hold a grudge and not forget.

> Japan did invade China during WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

Started well before (1937) and ended a month later, to be precise.

The biggest annoyance to the Japanese at the moment is the number of Chinese tourists overrunning everywhere.

It's easy to read the newspapers about the govts of the world rattling their sabres at one another; what the people actually feel is often quite different.

Japan's military is disadvantaged by a lack of personnel with combat experience. The change permits japanese soldiers to participate as an equal partner with its allies, and to remedy its experience defecit.

Looks like you know what you are talking about.

Doubt it, everyone's food to kaiju

What are the actual Japanese military capabilities?

Japan still has the strongest navy in East Asia, though China will surpass them soon. Don't be fooled because they call it a maritime self defense force.

Japan's buying the F35 from the US and also recently started its own fighter jet development program, so whatever their capabilities currently are, they're increasing.

The F35 is a heap of junk for which the US is using all it's "allies" to fund and carry the burden. At least we now all have diminished capabilities not just the US. Win Win.

(citation needed) Really, several citations at least considering how broad and blanketing that statement is.

The F-35 JSF has problems, and I'll be the first to be critical, but it is not a "heap of junk." It's a tremendously capable fifth-generation air superiority fighter that can also serve in CAS, bomber, and ELINT roles.

Its tremendous versatility is one of the main reasons it became so expensive and difficult to develop: jack of all trades, master of none.

It's an escalation, not sure how that's good.

So I'm not familiar with Japan's system of government, what's the chance this goes before a Supreme Court equivalent and is struck down?

A few couple of quotes from wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court is generally reluctant to exercise the powers of judicial review given to it by the constitution, in large part because of unwillingness to become involved in politically sensitive issues. When decisions have been rendered on such matters as the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Forces, the sponsorship of Shinto ceremonies by public authorities, or the authority of the Ministry of Education to determine the content of school textbooks or teaching curricula, the Court has generally deferred to the government."

"The Supreme Court of Japan has been described as the most conservative constitutional court in the world, and for good reason ...Since its creation in 1947 [the court] has struck down only eight statutes on constitutional grounds. By way of comparison, Germany’s constitutional court, which was established several years later, has struck down over 600 laws."

So what's the chance? Not very high.

I wonder if they would like to buy any Typhoons, A400Ms or aircraft carriers.

... and sell some P1s.

> I wonder if they would like to buy any ... aircraft carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroy...

We've a couple that could theoretically operate fixed-wing aircraft, but no aircraft to go on them, and we can't afford them anyway, so...

Is anyone else getting a "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable" error?

I was thinking about this just the other day and looking back at the past 20 years, the small but persistent efforts by Japanese government to provoke neighbors by claiming isles as their own or pissing off WW2 victims by saying they were prostitutes and not sex slaves employed by the Japanese Army, has finally paid off.

All those years pissing off many Koreans, Chinese, Taiwanese appears to have been a very carefully concocted foreign policy with the goal of aggravating action from a large military power to bring tension in the region and thus receiving the attention of the US. With the backdrop of China's unprecedented growth and military expansion, this turned out remarkly well for Japan.

I often look at outcomes of today for Japan and their past diplomacy in East Asia, specifically designed to create tension and worry America enough to let the dog from the leash.

This, incidentally, was partly a "gift" from Obama to Abe in order to get him on board with the TPP:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/obama-bribes-abe-supp...

It just goes to show just how desperate Obama is to get the TPP signed and the depths to which he'll sink. First tacit approval of slavery in Malaysia and now state department approval of Japanese re-militarization.

All for a trade agreement that grants corporations the ability to sue nation states in secret courts for instituting laws that impede their ability to profit.

Amazing what Obama is willing to give up in order to secure 'his' legacy issues. 60 years of post war Asian defense strategy thrown out the window. I don't see this ending well. Japan a has a deep militaristic underbelly and most japanese hate their regional neighbors (South Korea, China). They are our allies but this increases instability in Asia enormously and could lead to a regional arms race between China and Japan and greatly increases the risk of a military conflict in Asia in the next 30 years.

Do not forget the Korea. Albeit Japan is their ally they will work their asses so hard to destroy them economically or militarily if the opportunity arises.

I have lived in China, Korea and Japan and in my opinion you are not right.

Fist, US of America is requesting Japan to do what is has done. They are worried about China, not Japan. Also the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam want Japan involvement.

Japan today is a very old country which population is going to decrease in dozens of millions in the next decades.

By contrast China has a population more than 10 times bigger than Japan, but now they are industrialized, they can sustain a war, and could kill millions.

US wants to maintain control trade on China sea. Preserve the status quo(as WWII winner). Of course China wants to change the status quo, control her own sea, and if possible, dominate others(like the US does).

> most japanese hate their regional neighbors

Well let's not over-generalize, hate is a strong word. But yes, there are unresolved history and serious tensions...

That analysis is pathetically bad. I'm no fan of the TPP, but one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens.

There's a number of things going on here:

1) The South China sea dispute is getting more and more dangerous. Japan wants flexibility in making alliances to counterbalance China in that area.

2) This give Japan the ability to deploy troops (or more likely aircraft) to the Middle East in support of US operations there. That likely to happen in return for more active US support in the South China Sea.

3) There is always the North Korean factor. That really defies any sensible analysis, but one can imagine circumstances where Japan would like to use military forces against NK.

It's true that the TPP is seen in the Asia-Pacific as an anti-China move, but it seems a comparatively minor part in this particular change in Japan's military stance.

>one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens.

It doesn't.

Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.

Ironically the deal might still fail (which Abe probably wouldn't mind since the TPP is not good for Japan), meaning that this negotiating chip was given away by Obama for free.

>it seems a comparatively minor part in this particular change in Japan's military stance.

You are confusing the reasons why Abe wanted to remilitarize (another topic entirely) with the reasons why Obama had the US state department give him the green light.

>Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.

Abe has been pushing for constitutional changes since he returned to the PM's office, and the US has been supportive all along since it means we'll be putting fewer resources into guaranteeing Japan's defense.

This has been in the cards since before TPP even existed.

Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.

Abe has been on the path to rearming Japan since 2012[1][2].

The US has wanted Japan to rearm for years. See the articles in the NYT and the WSJ in 2013[3][4]. It's seen as a way to use Japanese money as a counter to China in the region. The fact they are likely to buy US weapons systems helps, too.

The way your comment is phrased makes me wonder if you think the US State department had some legal oversight of the clause or something? It doesn't - the legal basis for this change is completely in Japanese hands.

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100293527

[2] http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/2623282-is-japan-on-t...

[3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873240817045782310...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/world/asia/with-eye-on-chi...

It's hard to know what's real and what's not real with TPP, since we don't know what's in it.

Having said that, I agree with your analysis. This move is necessary for Japan to enter into regional security agreements - other countries aren't going to enter into a mutual defense pact with Japan if it can't assist in their defense when they're attacked.

If Japan takes action against North Korea the South will bomb Tokyo to the oblivion.

South Korea will not permit anyone and especially Japan to touch anything that belongs to Koreans. Koreans living in the NK are still citizens of SK and the land is claimed by SK.

Yes if there is conflict on the seas or in the air with the NK forces then SK will do nothing to stop the Japan.

What Japan did today/yesterday just pushed SK to be more assertive towards Japan. It hopefully speeds up the reunification.

DISCLAIMER: I am not korean.

I agree with this assessment. But I can imagine circumstances where joint SK/Japanese operations against NK would be possible.

Unlikely. Maybe under the US general. But who am I to know ?

Koreans have not even allowed the Japanese to help them with the Sewol ferry even if they were within the reach.

I'll just leave this here:

The United States of America, the Republic of Korea, and Japan held a productive and substantive security meeting from April 16-17 in Washington, District of Columbia, to enhance trilateral defense cooperation in light of the evolving security environment in the region.... The officials reaffirmed that their governments will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, and agreed to closely coordinate to deter North Korean provocations.... In addition, the three countries held a productive discussion on cooperative measures for non-traditional security issues including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, counter-piracy operations, and counter-ISIL efforts.[1]

Three years ago it was impossible to imagine the US and Iran co-operating about anything. Now the US has provided de facto aircover for Iranian operations against ISIS.

[1] http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/...

Not an expert in the region but I'm pretty convinced SK has no real want to bomb Japan. And inversely, Japan wouldn't take action against the DPRK without it being a coordinated SK/US/JP effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com