15 ms·

Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military

113 points by tomkwok 11y ago

thomasfoster96 11y ago
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.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Everything is fair in love and war.
- adrianN 11y ago
  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."
  - archlight 11y ago
    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.
    - norswap 11y ago
      Somehow I don't think we're going to see the fabled Japanese mechas run over Europe and the US any time soon :)
      - toyg 11y ago
        This is not about the West, it's about the South China Sea. Chinese mechas will fight it out with Japanese ones.
    - Navarr 11y ago
      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_issued_by_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements... "Apology is a very important thing in Japan."
  - njharman 11y ago
    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".
- eplanit 11y ago
  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 http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.640063
  - 6t6t6 11y ago
    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.
crdoconnor 11y ago
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-support-tpp-unleashing-japanese-military.html 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.
- thebmax 11y ago
  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.
  - suryon 11y ago
    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.
  - Htsthbjig 11y ago
    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).
IBM 11y ago
This is a good move and will help the US and its allies balance China.
- thebmax 11y ago
  It could also very easily spin out of control and increase instability in Asia.
  - Animats 11y ago
    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.
    - sergers 11y ago
      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.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - ableal 11y ago
      > Japan did invade China during WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War Started well before (1937) and ended a month later, to be precise.
hkmurakami 11y ago
>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.
- rtpg 11y ago
  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.
  - jonyt 11y ago
    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.
    - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
      It was written before we realized that we needed a stronger Japan in Asia after the Korean War I think.
- unabst 11y ago
  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.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
curiousjorge 11y ago
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.
mst 11y ago
Of war, we don't speak anymore Of war, we don't speak anymore Of war, we don't speak anymore Of war, we don't speak anymore We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens
gaius 11y ago
I wonder if they would like to buy any Typhoons, A400Ms or aircraft carriers.
- rjsw 11y ago
  ... and sell some P1s.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > I wonder if they would like to buy any ... aircraft carriers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroy...
  - gaius 11y ago
    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...
bane 11y ago
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?
- frivoal 11y ago
  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.
mathrawka 11y ago
65% of the public oppose this, and only 38% support the PM now. http://news.yahoo.co.jp/list?t=public_opinion_poll http://news.yahoo.co.jp/list?t=public_opinion_poll
- reustle 11y ago
  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).
  - Larrikin 11y ago
    I don't think I've ever been by Kokkai Gijido where there wasn't some group protesting something.
morgante 11y ago
Is anyone else getting a "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable" error?
Jackersob 11y ago
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.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  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.
  - scribu 11y ago
    > 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#Budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#Budg...
    - copsarebastards 11y ago
      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.

113 points by tomkwok 11y ago

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.

x5n1 11y ago
Everything is fair in love and war.
adrianN 11y ago
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."
- archlight 11y ago
  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.
  - norswap 11y ago
    Somehow I don't think we're going to see the fabled Japanese mechas run over Europe and the US any time soon :)
    - toyg 11y ago
      This is not about the West, it's about the South China Sea. Chinese mechas will fight it out with Japanese ones.
  - Navarr 11y ago
    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_issued_by_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements... "Apology is a very important thing in Japan."
- njharman 11y ago
  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".
eplanit 11y ago
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 http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.640063
- 6t6t6 11y ago
  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.

crdoconnor 11y ago

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-support-tpp-unleashing-japanese-military.html 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.

thebmax 11y ago
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.
- suryon 11y ago
  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.
- Htsthbjig 11y ago
  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).

IBM 11y ago

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

thebmax 11y ago
It could also very easily spin out of control and increase instability in Asia.
- Animats 11y ago
  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.
  - sergers 11y ago
    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.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - ableal 11y ago
    > Japan did invade China during WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War Started well before (1937) and ended a month later, to be precise.

hkmurakami 11y ago

>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.

rtpg 11y ago
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.
- jonyt 11y ago
  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.
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    It was written before we realized that we needed a stronger Japan in Asia after the Korean War I think.
unabst 11y ago
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.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

curiousjorge 11y ago

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.

mst 11y ago

Of war, we don't speak anymore Of war, we don't speak anymore Of war, we don't speak anymore Of war, we don't speak anymore We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens We will fight the heathens

gaius 11y ago

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

rjsw 11y ago
... and sell some P1s.
ceejayoz 11y ago
> I wonder if they would like to buy any ... aircraft carriers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-class_helicopter_destroy...
- gaius 11y ago
  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...

bane 11y ago

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?

frivoal 11y ago
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.

mathrawka 11y ago

65% of the public oppose this, and only 38% support the PM now. http://news.yahoo.co.jp/list?t=public_opinion_poll http://news.yahoo.co.jp/list?t=public_opinion_poll

reustle 11y ago
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).
- Larrikin 11y ago
  I don't think I've ever been by Kokkai Gijido where there wasn't some group protesting something.

morgante 11y ago

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

Jackersob 11y ago

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.

copsarebastards 11y ago
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.
- scribu 11y ago
  > 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#Budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#Budg...
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    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.