1. Introduction

70 years after the end of WW2…

In Japan, there is upsurge of discussions on “national defense”. The agenda is “whether we should grant the actions based upon collective self-defense” to the Self-Defense Forces. Not only grown-ups, also even college students and high school students opine their “pros and cons”.

Such a good occasion to discuss on “peace” will hardly come again.

In fact, I feel some sort of “discomfort” on their opinions. Well, I think it’s a good occasion to let myself summarize my own opinion, as a 42 years old man. And I will review this for myself after a year later. (How will I feel? I wonder still I will feel “embarrassing”…)

Common opinion on “right of collective self-defense”
-X1. Resolutely opposed: Should not admit resolutely
-X2. Constitutionally opposed: Should not admit because it is unconstitutional
-X3. Constitutional amendment aggressive: Should admit with constitutional amendment
-Y1. Interpretation alteration: Should admit under the current Constitution (<- Government policy)

　(c) HuffPost Japan

1-1. Disagreement and Legislation

“Discussions” in Japan are unexpectedly simple.

-X. Japan should remain as “a country that is exercisable of only the right of individual self-defense”
-Y. Japan should become “a country that is exercisable of the right of collective self-defense”

As a matter of course, it had been included in the issue of national elections for several times in the past, and it was also written in the manifesto of the major parties. And the advocating party of “Y1. alteration of the Constitution Interpretation” (Liberal Democratic Party) is maintaining the regime.

However, we must be cautious on;

– Many political parties have justified the military alliance, Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, on which Japanese defence relies.
– However, further discussions about “National defence” did not raise.

Public attention was mostly on the “economic policy”.

2012-12-16: Election promise on the 46th election of House of Representatives
– In order to protect the regional stability and peace of Japan, we will admit the exercise of collective self-defense rights, and will establish the “Basic Law of National Security”
2013-07-28: Election promise on the 32th regular election of House of Councillors
– While reviewing the “Guidelines for Japan-US Defense Cooperation”, we will promote defense cooperation with allies-friendly countries
– We will promote the legislation enactment to protect the peace and the regional stability of Japan, such as “general law of international peace cooperation .” “Basic Law of national security”
2014-07-01: Cabinet decision for exercising of the right of collective self-defense
– Prospect for realization of the Legitimate “UN forces” is not set
– It is no longer possible for any country to protect their peace only by themselves
– Under “the Active pacifism”, contribute actively than ever before to the peace and stability of the international community
2014-12-14: Election promise on the 47th election of House of Representatives
– On the basis of the cabinet decision, quickly establish a security legislation that allows the corresponding seamlessly through normal times

1-2. Opposition movement

Of course,,,
originally, practicing the Election promise is “obligation” for a political parties.

Speaking in the sense of democracy, the situation that “the policy that has gained support in the election is not realized” is against the justice. In other words, we should not forget that “to become a country that can exercise the right to collective self-defense” is a choice of our own.

Regarding current situation, it is true that some people have changed their opinion by watching
– the “actual Bill” or
– “the discussions in the Diet”

“Activation of opposition demonstrations” and “Decline of Cabinet support rate ” became even more pronounced at the occasion of the voting in the Preceding Chamber (House of the Representatives). (This can be “Topical record” for myself in the future…)

In other words, I can also understood the feeling that people want to say “resolutely prevent” the vote in the succeeding Chamber (House of Councillors).

(To ensure democracy thoroughly, there is no choice but to carry out the election again.)

Improvement Act for Peace and Safety legislation (189-72)
– Act of amending the part of the Self-Defense Forces Law, etc. In order to contribute to ensuring peace and security of our country and the international community

International Peace Support Act (189-73)
– Act on cooperation and support activities against foreign troops by the Government in time of international peace co-deal situation

* Parliamentary group in favor during deliberations in the House of Representatives: Liberal Democratic Party (290), New Komeito (35), Party for Future Generations (2), (seats in House of Representatives: 475)
* Parliamentary groups will likely Favor in the House of Councilors: Liberal Democratic Party (114), New Komeito (20), Party for Future Generations (6) (seats in House of Councillors: 242)
 

1-3. Disappointing Discussion

However,,,
What is disturbing in either case is the status quo that “tactics to inhibit the discussion” has been waging such as

– “labeling” as “War Bill”, or
– taking out the “unrelated story” such as “revival of conscription “. Recently I came to see and hear some remarks such as

– “they do not even care about the lives of citizens.”

Certainly “criticism of those in power” must be allowed to the fullest.

However, “provocative statement” (expressions that incite hatred) to deny the personality of the opponent is a barren spell. I want to demand “words and deeds on dignity” even for who are in the status of “student”.

(I also want to ask to mass-media “to write pros and cons based on objective facts”)

2. Certainly, it is not adaptable?

First of all, the arguments on “National defense” is difficult for the Japanese people.

2-1. War Allergy

Peace education in Japan, they teach that “war = disastrous thing”.

In particular, there is a tendency to “tragedy of involving the civilians” is emphasized.

For Japanese in their 40’s, for example, they watched the “atomic bomb animation” in elementary school gathering, and visited the “Museum of Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima or Nagasaki” in school trip of junior high school. Some people even got trauma for the brutal video and items. And they have become considering that “war is something that must not be”, sometimes even “that could not be”.

As the result, the Japanese tend to regard the “possibility of war” as non realistic things.

There is a similar part about discussion on “the possibility of a nuclear accident” in Japan. For example, agenda such as “method to avoid the war from the perspective of policy makers” will be positioned as “do not discussed” or “discussion itself is taboo”.

2-2. Ambiguous Constitution

The Japanese pay “reverence” against the Constitution. That is, they believe that to comply with the Constitution is “virtue” and “justice”. It is also similar to the “beliefs against God or Buddha.” As the result, the Constitution is regarded as ” something that will not be changed”, or “things that must not be changed”. (sometimes even as “given things”) In fact, over more than 120 years since the enforcement of 1890, it has never been changed voluntarily. And it will never be changed voluntarily, also in the future.

However, the “Self-Defense Forces” exists in the reality, despite it is written in the “teaching of God” that

– “Military Force will never be maintained” (Article 9).

But, the Japanese don’t care about “ambiguity” of this level.

That is, they are feeling that “in the Constitution, Public stances and efforts Goals (Program Rules) has been written more than a little”.

To give a iconic example, the new constitution was voted amid some opposite opinion that “jeopardize the ethnic independence if abandoned the right of self-defense” (the Japanese Communist Party). Yet, 12 years after the enforcement of the Constitution (1959), the Supreme Court stated “The Constitution never intended to determine defenseless, nonresistance. It is as a matter of course that the measures for self-defense may be taken as exercising of the National-specific authority.” (Sunagawa incident)

Especially, the context of the Constitution and the Self-Defense Forces is no longer understandable for an ordinary human being, considering of circumstances that it were made in the United States initiative during the time the national sovereignty has been limited. (Nothing to do, but reverence.)

Anyway, in terms of national defense debate, I have to say that “the foundation of discussion” is very unstable state.

2-3. Inevitability of Defense

As Japan is an island country, we have only few experiences of serious “invasion” from other countries.

With the exception of the World War II, we have not been “invaded” over the past several hundred years. Particularly, since after prescription of “the US military obligations in Japan defense” in the new treaty (Article 5 of the Japan-US Security Treaty, 1960), there was not even a sign of invasion.

In other words, there was no need to discuss about “national defense” at all, throughout these 70 years.

However, the first experience of recognition of “crisis of invasion” (US East India Squadron) around 1850 should not be forgotten.

It was natural that the “discussion of self-defense” at that time was realized the transition to a constitutional monarchy. In the other hand, it can be said that it was unfortunate that concluded as getting involved in the “imperialism” of the world.

3. Setting the Scope

Now, first of all, which shall we aim, “Peace of Japan” or “Peace of the world”?

3-1. Scope for Challenges to be Solved

Countries around the world are recognizing problems on “self-defense”.

– (P) Invasion does not stop all over the world yet. The risk of becoming the target of invasion is also growing in Japan.

It is natural that the government consider the self-defense. I don’t know “the scope”. Which should it be?

– (S) Aim peace of Japan only
– (S) Aim peace of the world

3-2. Thinking about Peace of Only Japan

“Build a peace based on the protection of the great powers” is correct as a strategy of small countries.

For example, “obligation of Japan Defense ” by the US military is exactly an “Aegis Shield”, the strongest of the world.

However, “collective self-defense” in this case is only in the sense that “aid from the major powers”. In fact, by paying “about 600 billion yen for compassion” (expense related to the US forces in Japan) out of “about 5 trillion yen of defense budget, Japan can use the US military force, which is with the budget of “more than 10 times” and has the strength of “100 times (?)” to Japan, at any time. (No obligation of US defence) (Wasn’t it truly the pioneer case of Paradigm shift of “from ownership to use”?)

However, even if the United States started to insist that “We want to cancel the treaty”, it is not surprising when they think “Japan military no longer will not be reckless”, or “Whether there is a meaning to defend them over the lives of US soldiers”. (In fact, there is an example like New Zealand that defense obligation is suspended.)

That is, the question is that if we can maintain the “Aegis shield”, even after 30, 50 years later. Although it’s not an example of the “nuclear accident”, also in this case, we must not stop thinking considering “discard of Treaty would never happen”.

3-3. Thinking about World peace

Is Peace only in Japan a “great cause”?

It may surely meet the “national interest”… (Though it is opaque that if it will still serve “national interest” in light of the long-term outlook.) In fact, politicians are bound by the words of “national interest”. Referring to the “dictionary of the national interest”, they will determine about “that is against the national interest” as a vice.

However, it is not a “great cause” that world citizens can feel sympathy.

Rather, should Japan of today be oriented “peace of the world”, actually?

I think now is the time that we need constructive discussions toward its goal by setting the two “S1. Range to be resolved in the near future” and “S2. Range to resolve the distant future”, while the war experience generation are surviving.

4. Lessons from World History

To think about the future, there is no way other than looking back on the past, eventually.

Moreover, today that is advanced in science and technology, “the third time of world war” would be directly linked to the perishment of the human race. World citizens must prevent the “large-scale armed conflict” with their wisdom.

4-1. Principle of Denial of Imperialism

Sickness of “imperialism” and “colonialism” which were rampant throughout the world has caused a world war.

Certainly, colonization that has been deployed in Asia and Africa may have been “results of simply in accordance with the law of the jungle”. Alternatively, it might be an “inevitableness that could not be understood unless experienced”.

Japan as an Island nation was overjoyed for “imperialism”.

As the result, by the idea of “national interests priority”, the life of many of the world’s citizens were killed.

By the result, there is no justice in any of the country. Above all, “semi-colonization of China” that happened around 1900 is a symbolic historical fact. The United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, France, United States, and Japan competed the “national interest”, taking advantage in national power lowering of Qing Dynasty. Their responsibility for the “confusion of China” that has continued even till today is extremely heavy.

World citizen must suggest / build an international system for suppressing the ambition of “invasion of other countries”.

4-2. Principle of Assistance for Small Countries

“Regional autonomy / Ethnic autonomy” is what’s the basis for world order.

“Kuwait invasion” by Iraq (1990) is still fresh in our minds. The world watched the “war that was televised”. US and UN helped Kuwait. As the result, they were able to escape from being merged. (Japan also contributed in war burden by more than 1 trillion yen.)

Whereas, the international community could not stop the invasion at the time of “Ukraine Invasion” by Russia (2014).

In the discussion of this kind, there is also the idea of “Let’s emulate Swiss”. Japan also once was said to be “should serve as Switzerland of Far East”.

However, Switzerland which is known as “permanent neutral country” is rather a symbol of “the difficulty of the small country defense”. Although, indeed it is a rare peaceful nation that could protect about 8 million people since the Hague Convention of 1907, it is not intended to be imitated in any country. In other words, they construct the fortress, mandate nuclear shelters, and have a tragic defense plan contemplates a “scorched earth policy” (suicidal mission), also have a universal conscription as a “national policy”, even now. There is no country that is likely to practice Such things. (UN membership has realized finally turned in 2002.)

(There is also a case of a painful history of India who insisted Nonaligned and defeated by China and Pakistan, and then ran to the “nuclear”.)

5. What is the national defense that should be?

It is not a discussion which is easy to obtain a conclusion, even talking over long time period.

However, regarding the “great cause”, it is clear that developed countries themselves must propose / build a “new world order”. Among them, the role of Japan and Germany that are defeated and are also as the enemies in the United Nations Charter, is large.

Looking back the past, “the International Federation which the United States itself did not participate” was not supposed to be able to build a world order. However, if “United Nations” of post world war, it can not be said there is no possibility. Paradoxically, it is the only organization that is possible. Shouldn’t the world citizens bet on this organization, even though the road is tough?

5-1. Growing World Population

“World population growth” after 1900 is very severe. And still it will increase dramatically in the future.
Given the principle of the struggle for existence, “scramble for resources” might be inevitable.

We must consider

– Significantly jumping up of resource supply
– Suppression of resource consumption

on the global basis.

※ World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 (2015-07-29)
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

5-2. The World of Post-United States

– North Atlantic Treaty (the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, etc. 12 countries)
– Commonwealth of Independent States Collective Security Treaty (Russia, Armenia, etc. 6 countries)
– Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the United States, Argentina, Brazil, etc. 18 countries)
– Pacific Ocean Security Treaty (the United States, Australia, New Zealand)
– US-Japan Security Treaty (USA, Japan)
– US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty (USA, Philippines)
– US-South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty (the United States, South Korea)
– Taiwan Relations Act (the United States, Taiwan)

In reality, in terms of national defense, it only makes a sense when being in alliance with “the United States, the world’s largest”.
However, considering the “American stagnation” or “the world of post-United States”, it is necessary to create a new international system, making full use of bilateral treaties and multilateral treaties including the United Nations Charter.

The situation in which the world is dependent only on the United States, I must say that is unstable.

5-3. Needs for UN Force

As a world citizen, I want them to show us the way how the “defense of small country ” of a country like Japan should be.

Even if the countries of the world spend the defense expenditure of the “1% of GDP”, a small country can not have a sufficient defense capability, of course. When you talk about international peace, even it is “GDP ratio of 0.5%”, even if it is “0 %”, national security of the country must be secured, although there might be some cases where national defense to be “outsourced”.

Thinking about the goal that world should aim of 30 years 50 years later, we can do nothing but continue to maintain the world’s largest treaty, “UN Charter”. I want Japan to set the policy as positive as a step forward to be the first country to conclude “troop-contributing agreement” with the United Nations.

Suppose if Japan which is still an “enemy” of Allied has realized it, the world will recognize that it is the conclusion at the end on which the entire Japanese people considered about world peace desperately.

6. Conclusion (No, never be concluded)

So far, I have checked the various facts, and I tried to put a variety of discussion on it.

Although I became aware till the thought of “Japan should be the country to contribute to the world”, its specific method is very difficult. For example, if even though all the world citizens got the right to vote now, it would be impossible to elect the “President of World Federation” rationally.

Still, someday “World Congress” will be realized.

The day when the way to elect the world Federation president will be discussed will come. In the parliament, it will be discussed without the national interests of “Japan” nor “America Country”. It is the same logic as that discussions which is based on the national interests of ancient feudal countries such as “Choshu” and “Aizu”, are not made in the Japanese parliament today.

Now, thinking while imagining the “future”, I am no longer interested in the discussions on the level of “partially acceptance of the right to collective self-defense”. I don’t care if “the Right of collective self-defense” is whether constitutional or not with respect to the Constitution of certain country.

Rather, I think constructive discussion on “collective security” is necessary.

For that sake, we should contribute to the United Nation on the level of “Compassion budget” (600 billion yen), instead of 30 billion. And it is the time we should start the discussion now, while war experience people are still surviving.

6-1. Correction of Information Disparity

There are many people who are regarding the “Constitutionalism” as absolute. However, “Constitutionalism” means nothing unless “democracy” has been established, after all. And “democracy” does not make sense without the “environment for the citizens to have the right idea”.

Probably, the first important thing is that all mankind has an “environment to obtain a variety of information freely”.
 

6-2. Correction of Nationalism

From the space, there is no border seen on the earth. (By John Lennon, Astronauts)

That is, I am no longer a mere “Japanese”. I must become to be able to discuss the way the world should be, with self-awareness as a “world citizen”.

6-3. Cry out for Disarmament

We must find the “way to curb military spending”.

We should not give up, even though it is “Too difficult” for human beings of today. I wish if military expenditures in the world is reduced by 10%, even 50% out of ” 200 trillion yen”…

(c) garbage news