A More Independent Japan Is Now the Time

The landslide victory of Japans opposition party that ended the five-decade rule of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) signals the overwhelming public sentiment for reform. Japans incoming Prime Minister Hukio Yatohama (DPJ) has made it clear that the new government will build a foreign policy that would be more independent of the United States, a long-standing ally (Kyung). This pledge opens the floodgates for a renewed debate on whether or not departing from the status quo of US-Japan bilateral relations will be in the best interest of the Asian country, which has existed as a pacifist, abnormal and US-dependent nation since its devastating defeat in the Second World War. This paper argues in favor of reform and maintains that Japans transition into a more independent nation will benefit the country militarily and economically, strengthen Japans position in regional and international affairs, thereby leading toward greater prestige and national pride. Times have changed. Threats have become more imminent. Now is the time for Japan to move on beyond the subservient position the US imposed on the country in 1945 toward a more equal relationship.

Greater military autonomy
The greatest argument toward greater military autonomy for Japan is that its reliance on the US is no longer sufficient to protect it from the real threats it faces. The greatest argument against military autonomy is that it could trigger an arms race in East Asia and create more security tensions. The nuclear threat from North Korea  missiles flying over its territory and ships invading territorial waters  cannot be ignored. China has since been persistent in amassing military capability as it competes with Japan over resources that have grown increasingly scarce (Samuels 110). To deter frictions and threats to its national security, Japan has relied on the provisions of the US-Japan security treaty, which according to Yoshihide Soeya, subordinated Japans traditional security concerns to those of the United States (211). Given the global security threats of terrorism, ethnic disputes, and extremism, Japans passive pacifism is no longer reflective of actual geopolitical realities. Now more than ever, it needs to upgrade its capability to ensure its self-defense. Whatever the form and degree of military autonomy Japan takes on would be done only in the interest of self-help and because of the legitimate doubt that the US, by all intents and purposes, would not come to the rescue of Japan in the event of a major military emergency (Middlebrooks 59). The global conditions today are drastically different in 1945 when the US vowed to defend Japan without any reciprocal commitment (Samuels 190) since the end of the Cold War, the US has treated Japan indifferently, even to the extent of abandonment (Glosserman 41). There is increasing anxiety that the US is not adequately meeting its security commitments in terms of ballistic defense (Finnegan 16).

The unreliability of US military commitment necessitates self-reliance on the part of Japan to ensure its national survival. A more independent Japan would require a shift from its doctrine of defensive defense to that of collective defense (Samuels 220). Naturally, this shift would alarm its Asian neighbors, given Japans historical record of aggression. If Japan emphasizes on collective defense, must not do so with an independent security posture. As what neoautonomists suggest, autonomy means building a better military shield that is nuclear and operationally independent of the United States (Samuels 193). Maximizing this autonomy would mean that Japan will buy more offensive weapons, increase defense spending, allow its defense firms to have a role in weapons systems development, and increase its patrol perimeters to include the Persian Gulf (Samuels 200). From its gun-shy diplomacy and its three non-nuclear principles (Miyashita 104), a more independent Japan would be one that could muster sufficient military power to defend itself from external aggression.

Opponents of this proposal would argue that any move toward offensive defense would increase tensions, especially on the part of Korea and China, countries that still possess substantial degrees of historical anger. They would likewise argue that such a shift in Japans security strategy would create problems within the US-Japan alliance. Would such a shift from the status quo offend or stoke hostility from the US and other nations Initially, it would. Any effort to create a self-reliant Japanese military should be accompanied by strengthened cooperation and regional diplomatic ties. It is a gradual process that must be coupled with diplomacy. Moreover, a more independent Japan does not equate to completely cutting off ties with the United States and would not be adverse to the alliance. Rather, greater military autonomy would be in the best interest of both Japan and the United States.  As the US seeks for greater participation from its allies in implementing its global security strategy, a more self-reliant Japan would contribute more operationally. Moreover, if Japan were to develop its capabilities fully for self-defense, it would become a more effective participant in the regional and global campaign for nuclear deterrence and nuclear proliferation (Finnegan 22).

Economic Implications
The value of Japans economic partnership with the United States could not be disputed. Greater independence from the US would be detrimental to Japans interest because the latter could impose economic pressure on the country. On the other hand, a more independent policy could bring Japan closer to its regional economic partners, particularly China, and could convert a threat into an opportunity. Japan is the second largest global economy and is heavily reliant on consumption in the US. The most disadvantageous consequences should the move toward a more independent Japan creates animosity within the US will be economic in nature. While the Japanese economy would incur heavy losses should its economic ties with US are strained, the relationship will stabilize in the long run. History has proven that Japans straightforward resource diplomacy has enabled it to manage its trade relationships across enemy lines without alienating the US (Yoshihide 218). For instance, Japan traded successfully with China and entered into a private trade agreement despite being aligned with the US in the Cold War. Despite potential backlash from the US, Japan traded with the Arab countries and the OPEC even designated the country as friendly and refrained from cutting off its oil supply (Yoshihide 217). To stabilize the economic impact of greater independence, Japan can always look to strengthening its relationship with East Asia particularly China and the Asia-Pacific countries. While the US still reels from recession, China today is a bustling economy. Moreover, Japanese dependence on the US consumer market may be large, but it is no longer the largest. US buys 29 percent of Japanese exports but the entire Asian region buys 44 percent (Sugita). There is still room for Japan to pursue stronger ties with its Asian neighbors should the US put economic pressure on the country. On the other hand, for the US to completely sanction Japan economically would be adverse to its interests. While Japan reveals itself to be the more dependent partner in the bilateral relationship, the US also depends on the Japanese market. In the final analysis, the US will understand how Tokyo works hard to reconcile its Asian diplomacy and economic interests with its global diplomacy and military interests (Samuels 205).

An active regional role
By moving toward more independence, Japan would be able to play an active role in regional issues. Conversely, it could rekindle historical anger and exacerbate already existing regional tensions. In the regional level, historical anger of Japans past mistakes still exist. Coupled with its close ties with the US, there is always the political doubt from Japans Asian neighbors who are weary and oppositional to US foreign policy. If Japan wants to foster stronger and friendlier relations with its Asian counterparts, it must liberate itself from what is perceived as excessive dependence on the US (Samuels 188). Greater defense capability may trigger an arms race but would also allow Japan to be more responsive to the concerns of its Asian neighbors in the field of environment, piracy, disease control, and cultural diplomacy (Samuels 200). Considering that world public opinion has been increasingly negative towards US foreign policy in the light of Americas unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq, Japan, being a close ally, draws itself nearer to the same anger. Distancing from the US by coming up with an independent defense strategy is important now, more than ever, because apparently, it no longer makes sense to follow the teachers instructions (Yoshihide 221). Moreover, Japan could maximize its ties with China and transform the Chinese threat perceived by the US into a Chinese opportunity (Samuels 197). Concerns of any move to strengthen Japans military capability is inevitable among Asian nations, particularly China and Korea. However, persistent diplomatic efforts on the part of Japan would temper such concerns in the long term.

International participation
A more independent Japan would allow the country to establish international presence that is commensurate with its national power. In the US-sponsored constitution ratified in 1945, Japan is prohibited to possess military forces by virtue of the prohibition of the right of belligerency (Miyashita 100). However, pro-pacifist sentiment among the Japanese has dwindled lately. The nuclear threat from North Korea and Chinas territorial ambitions are not mere rhetorical, but real threats. The current passive defense strategy of Japan makes it more vulnerable to Kim Jong Ils nuclear ambitions and Chinese expansionism. Greater military autonomy would empower Japan to become more functional in securing global peace. The Japanese public has always supported the countrys desire to become more influential in the international arena especially in the campaign against nuclear proliferation, human rights, and environmental protection. In fact, a 2003 poll conducted showed that 67 percent of the Japanese feel that their country should have a more active role in the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security (Miyashita 106). Japans dedication to the cause of human rights and peace efforts are evidenced by its huge contributions to the United Nations. Its desire for greater international participation is manifested by its campaign for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council (Yoshihide 220). Japans bid for greater involvement is constrained by political and constitutional frameworks of its US alliance and the only way for to achieve this aim is to gradually correct the imbalance in the US-Japan relationship and assert its right to collective defense (Funabashi 52). The postwar constitution on 1945 is the main hindrance toward Japans right to assert itself globally. Japans subservience is permanently etched within the confines of the US-Japan Treaty.

Greater prestige and national pride
The direction towards greater independence is essential in upholding prestige and national pride, values which are important to the Japanese national identity. Prestige, a combination of strength and wealth, is currently put at a disadvantage because of Japans subservient relationship with the US. As Japan grows in economic power and given its outstanding performance of its donor role and proven commitment to peace, maintaining a dependent position to the US is an affront to its sovereignty. Increasing prestige can only be achieved by equalizing the alliance through an establishment of a better and enhanced military shield (Samuels 192). Reforming its security policy would contribute to Japans aspirations to gain the respect of the rest of the world, and it must do so on its own terms and at its own pace (qtd. in Samuels 187). Seeking independence does not mean withdrawing support from the US but to make independent decisions and display its own style of leadership (Samuels 190). 

Responding to North Korea Force or Diplomacy
This outline provides the main points and supporting arguments on whether or not the use of force should be applied to prevent North Koreas nuclear proliferation activities which threaten global peace and security.

Proposition 1 Force is not necessary
Main Argument North Koreas nuclear program is defensive in nature and should be dealt with using diplomacy, not force. A careful review of North Koreas history and past actions suggest that its nuclear weapons program is designed as a means of self-defense to protect is sovereignty and to deter external attack from powerful countries that could undermine the gains of its communist revolution.
Nuclearization essential to recognition of state legitimacy. North Koreas buildup of nuclear weapons is meant to assert its legitimate position in the international order of nations. Its situation as the lone communist state requires it to show that it is militarily capable of protecting its territory. In this regard, it is acting like any legitimate non-communist state and should be regarded and respected in the same manner.

North Koreas claims of self-defense have basis. North Korea is entangled in a unique and extreme situation. It finds itself caught in the intersection of the worlds four major powers  US, China, Russia, and Japan. US and Japan support South Korea and consider North Korea an illegitimate country and are hell-bent on imposing its democratization. Geographically, North Koreas location makes it extremely vulnerable to external aggression.

Nuclearization acts as leverage to open up trade for weak economy. North Koreas nuclear posturing, while appearing to be a power tool, is a cry for help. Since the end of Soviet support, it has fought for its survival and emerged barely breathing  poverty and hunger pervade. North Koreas gradual opening up for trade and economic relations belie its aggressive stance.

Threat of nuclear use by North Korea illogical. North Koreas nuclear weapons are political, not military instruments. Using nuclear weapons would be defeatist for North Korea since it legitimizes a full-scale war against it. Weapons are for aggressive stance, not aggressive action.

Proposition 2 Force is necessary
Main argument It is an inescapable fact that North Korea indeed possesses nuclear weapons. The threat of its usage is real and must be dealt with by force.

North Korea is aggressive and dangerous to global security
The fact that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to use it must be treated seriously. That it did despite worldwide condemnation requires peace-loving nations to demand the destruction of its nuclear program.

Kim Jong Ils behavior and leadership style precludes the negotiation as a successful option.
North Koreas leader is not trustworthy in keeping his word or commitments to the international community. Negotiations have collapsed because Kim is merely resorting to blackmail.

Not punishing North Korea a dangerous precedent
If North Korea goes unpunished for its nuclear weapons proliferation, it sends a bad precedent internationally. It sends the signal that countries with nuclear ambitions can get away with it. It encourages other nations to build nuclear program like Iran. Disarming North Korea is a highly urgent global security issue.

Summary The dilemma of how to address the nuclear threat from North Korea is divided into two camps. Those who view North Korea from the purely military perspective perceive it as a rogue state and demand denuclearization by force. Those who view it from the lens of political economy equate its nuclearization with state survival and propose diplomacy. Resolving this issue is perhaps the most important action in order to maintain international peace and security.

Debate Points International Affairs

A more independent Japan would serve its interests by allowing it to establish international presence that is commensurate with its national power.

Greater military autonomy would empower Japan to become more functional in securing global peace.

This transformation would put Japan in a more active position to influence global policies regarding nuclear proliferation, human rights, and environmental protection, areas where it has an outstanding record on.

Japans greater international participation is justified because it is a top contributor to the United Nations.

Its bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council is supported by its citizens.

The only hindrance to Japans right to assert its international presence is its subservience to US.

0 comments:

Post a Comment