Japan's removal of ban on collective self-defense signals fascism emergence, escalates tension, stirs international unease

Japan's move escalates regional tension, signals fascism emergence: foreign experts

Foreign analysts and scholars have harshly criticized a resolution passed by the Japanese cabinet on Monday to allow it a larger military role in Asia, saying it will escalates regional tensions and is a sign of fascism emergence.

The resolution, which allows Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense by reinterpreting the pacifist Constitution, greenlights Japan to take military action to defend other countries even though the nation itself is not under attack, marking a major overhaul from Japan' s postwar security policy.

"Japan is changing," warned Shada Islam, the director of Brussels-based Policy, Friends of Europe in a written interview with Xinhua.

The move is part of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's drive to transform Japan into a "normal country" when it comes to defence and security, said Islam, adding that he has also pushed through a law to strengthen control of state secrets, created American-style National Security Council, and lifted Japan' s self-imposed restriction on exporting weapons.

Abe's so-called "proactive pacifism" is clearly not popular at home and he has had to abandon his original plan to secure direct constitutional revision -- but this move should reassure the United States that Japan is taking on some responsibility for its own defence, she said.

Public opinion in Japan will continue to act as a brake on some of the Abe's more ambitious plans, so Abe will have to carefully balance his policies, she said, adding that the resolution "will certainly not enhance security and could increase tensions in northeast Asia."

It is absurd for Japan to allows collective self-defense, said Enes Begicevic, a journalist from Bosnia and Herzegovina, adding that Japan's move will lead to regional instability.

"This constitutional change is both historic and worrying as it moves one of the pillars which has maintained the balance of peace in East Asia since the end of the Second World War," said Augusto Soto, professor of ESADE institution of Ramon Llull University and Director of Dialogue with China Project.

This measure could have the effect of destabilizing Asia and the Pacific and this is understood by an important part of public opinion in Japan which is against the Abe administration. However, this opinion does not have the political power to stop the Japanese government's initiative, he said.

In the face of this situation China could launch a political offensive in order to try and convince Japanese public opinion that the announced measure goes against Japanese interests, he advised.

"The new interpretation of the constitution that Japan's cabinet has adopted now may do little good to the security situation in the Asia-Pacific region," Angel Maestro, a Spanish columnist of the Financial World and a expert on asian affairs.

Japan's neighbors may worry this is the sign of a new rise of the fascism in Japan's Political Arena. These countries may strengthen their defense forces as insurance against the possibility that Japan has chosen an expansionist foreign policy as it did during the Second World War, which would raise tensions in the region and escalate conflicts that already exist, he said.

"I think it may increase the historical mistrust that Japan already faces from its neighboring countries, especially China and Korea, about its military intentions," said Piin-Fen Kok, Director of China, East Asia and United States Program with the EastWest Institute.

It' s up to Japan to explain clearly to its neighbors why it is doing this, and why this is good for regional and global security. Japan also needs to provide assurances to its neighbors that it will not revert to its militaristic past, Kok said.

"Collective self-defense is a compromise born from Shinzo Abe's political will, who leads a group of people that don't represent the mainstream of Japanese politics," Professor Axel Berkofsky, senior associate research fellow of Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) has told Xinhua.

"It is funny to say that Japan should regain the respect of the world. It was just saying: It's a weak commitment, a political move, a dream, a vision of Abe himself," he added.

- Xinhua (Editor:Wang Xin、Huang Jin)

Japan’s removal of ban on collective self-defense stirs international unease

The Japanese cabinet has approved a resolution that would allow the country to exercise the right of collective self-defense by reinterpreting the Pacifist Constitution.

The resolution sets three conditions that would enable exercise of the right including "clear danger" to the lives of its people due to armed attacks on Japan or "countries with close ties".

The move is an overhaul of Japan’s exclusively defense-oriented security policy after World War II and over half of Japanese are against it.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said that China is opposed to Japan's pursuit of its domestic political goals by deliberately inventing a "China threat", and urged Japan to respect the legitimate security concerns of its Asian neighbors and deal prudently with relevant issues. He said that Japan must not undermine China's sovereignty and security interests, nor should it harm regional peace and stability.

Japan’s removal of the ban on collective self-defense comes at a time of strained Sino-Japan relations, said Yuan Yang, a researcher with the Academy of Military Sciences of PLA. According to Yuan, China’s rapid economic and military development is the motive behind Japan’s move to constrain China.

Yuan Yang believes that lifting the ban on collective defense would ease certain restrictions on the Japanese military forces and might lead to gradual expansion of its military capability.

Yuan points out that Japan’s emphasis on "countries with close ties", rather than confining itself to its allies, increases the possibility of conflict between China and Japan. There is now the possibiltiy that the two countries might clash over issues related to third parties as well as the Diaoyu Island issue and other issues in the East China Sea.

Zhou Yongsheng, a professor with the China Foreign Affairs University, has also noted that the most serious consequence of removing the ban on collective self-defense might be a military alliance betweeen Japan and countries like the Philippines and Vietnam.

Faced with this situation, China needs to show the world that with peaceful development as its basic state policy, it will never pose any threat to other countries. It should try to unite all peace-loving forces, especially peace forces in Japan, to prevent these Japanese government moves. But China also needs to make it clear to the world that with its own strengthened military forces, it has nothing to fear from the provocative actions of other countries. - (People's Daily Online)

Related posts:

Japan defense shift sets free Tokyo’s militarism !

The Japanese cabinet's approval Tuesday of the right to collective self-defense is a major shift of Japan's defense policy. J...

Don't burn money, use it wisely

It is time to learn from our past and put our skills and resources into positive value creation.



NEXT month will be 68 years since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings in Japan.

To some, it is just another month at work. Some may celebrate their birthday, some become parents and for some, it may coincide with festive celebrations. Certainly few of us are old enough to remember the impact of the devastating events.

Being an avid reader, this date reminds me that the real tragedy of war is that it uses man’s best skills to do man’s worst work.

The creativity and perseverance that led to the discovery of the power of atoms, which could light up the world and potentially solve our energy issue, was used to create hell on earth.

The discovery of neutron by James Chadwick in February 1932, Niels Bohr’s discovery of fission and ultimately, Leo Szilard’s method of producing a nuclear chain reaction or a nuclear explosion, of which he even filed a patent, would lead to the creation of what was euphemistically called Little Boy.

Hardly little at all, for the bomb had the power of more than 20,000 tonnes of TNT, which destroyed most of Hiroshima, killing an estimated 130,000 people on Aug 6, 1945. Three days later, a second bomb, nicknamed Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki, killing between 60,000 and 70,000 people.

Looking at the incident as a case of creative discoveries being used for war efforts, one can’t help but reflect on how much of these resources could be used if such a detonation did not take place.

Going beyond the obvious tragedy of the loss of human life, there is the immense economic cost of cleaning up contaminated areas, reconstruction of buildings, productivity lost due to the physical injuries and sickness of the casualties, loss of national income, psychological damage, etc. How does one quantify that?

To me, it’s very clear that we need to divert our military resources to build more educational and medical institutions, research facilities, provide housing or even venture capital funds for start-ups that could create a world that is different, not destructive.

The 34th US President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, said in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors that “every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those whose hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”.

And he was a military man, the former supreme commander of the Allied Forces during World War II.

We may not be sure of how much Eisenhower’s grasp of value is, but it makes sense.

He said that the cost of a modern heavy bomber could finance a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It could even contribute to two electric power plants, with each serving a town of 60,000 in population. It could even construct two fully equipped hospitals.

As headlines blaring financial uncertainties continue today, it is a good time to wonder where all the money is going, and where are all the innovators and entrepreneurs to lift the standard of living and to fulfil the needs of society?

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, nearly RM6 trillion is spent annually on military, defence and armaments.

In economics, the idea of opportunity cost always arises in business. An entrepreneur will always need to consider the cost of giving up something in order to achieve a business objective.

So what is humanity giving up by laying down arms?

- Open Season by LIM WING HOOI The Star
Business writer Lim Wing Hooi believes that the human race needs to invest wisely in its own future.