How Japan balances the Libra of Article 9
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution remains a hot topic, what does that mean to us?
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution states that “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”
Following the defeat of Imperial Japan in WW2, the United States made sure that Japan guaranteed to not go into wars and reframed the country from having any land, sea, and air forces to ensure stability within Asia. By amending its constitution, it made sure that the Japanese government loses the ability to pose any threat as an opposing force to the western democracies.
Thus, the absence of a proper military force makes Japan an abnormal country within the international community, making it a huge factor in regards to the country shaping its foreign policy in order to achieve national security objectives. With this constitutional article in place ever since 1947 accompanied by the rise of Communist China as its neighbor, it is imperative that we explore this issue on both a regional and international security level with the concept of sovereignty. In which we need to analyze Japan’s attitude towards the regional conflicted regions but also on a national scale with regards to the debate happening in the legislative branch.
Prior to the 1970s when Japan experienced high economic growth, it mainly relied on the defense mechanism provided by the US in Asia to maintain a balance between the two forces in the Cold War; However, the economic growth along with the US’s failure in Vietnam, made the Japanese government launched the “Self Defense” Policy. As the report from National Chengchi University tells us, the specifics include raising the national defense up to 1% of the country’s GDP, accompanied by the later passing of the New National Defense Program in 2004 and the Mid-term Defense Program to outline specific planning for the self-defense force to be able to respond like a proper military force towards foreign intrusions.
The political implications behind this would be Japan preparing itself in response to regional threats, highlighting the importance of sovereignty to Japan on a regional level to ensure its economic and strategic interests. China has long been in conflict with Japan regarding the ownership of the Senkaku islands due to its valuable economic and strategic value, raising tensions between the two countries. Accompanied by Japan’s relatively pro-western stance and its strong support for Taiwan, Japan did everything it could to ensure its regional interest was covered; With regards to North Korea, Japan successfully positioned itself as a deterrent to North Korea’s nuclear threats to its neighboring regions, thus playing a key role in maintaining peace between South and North Korea within the region for stability.
The spending continues to rise, and as of the fiscal year of 2022, Nikkei Asia reported that $49.3 billion was allocated toward the military, a new high budget that might surpass the long-standing cap of 1% GDP.
Japan also attempted to utilize international mechanisms to expand its military power. During the Gulf War, Japan was criticized for not providing military support within the region, and thus incentivized the Japanese Congress to successfully established the ground for Japanese Self Defense Troops to be deployed in two circumstances: The deployment should be either to provide humanitarian assistance or to join a United Nations operations under the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) framework. This allows for Japan to break through the barriers set by Article 9 and legally participate in military operations.
Proponents of offensive realism like John Joseph Mearsheimer would tend to view that Japan’s ability to once again participate in international affairs militarily is a well-thought strategic move that enhanced its own national security, since all 9 of its operations from 1992 to 2004 all proved to be successful while establishing the precedence for the Japanese Self-Defense Force to operate legally under the constitutional framework, giving it the necessary power to ensure its own national interest against all foreign enemies.
On the other hand, from the perspective of proponents of neoliberalism, instead of arguing whether Japan’s military participation in regions such as Afghanistan or Iraq furthers instability and moves the region away from the possibility of conflict, it could actually be argued that every single military operation from Japan so far, since all of them is there to not engage in direct conflict but to mediate and ensure stability to protect civilians, is successfully lowering the cost of conflict. When used correctly, the Japanese military force found its way of exerting military influence in the world within its limitations, and thus the use of military power doesn’t constitute the negative aspects of using the so-called “hard power”.
It is important to view this issue on a national level where the debate on amending Article 9 remains polarized on both ends. Japanese conservatives view it as “an anachronistic American imposition that unfairly limits Japan’s military”, which effectively hampers the country’s ability to respond to neighboring threats while the defenders of this article would argue that an establishment of a military generates the exact conflict that it was meant to be avoiding and thus the status quo perfectly balances both ends as proven by the peace on Japanese soil for over 70 years. It is worth noting that regardless of their stance, they both place “security” of their country as the number one priority when considering the constitutional amendment.
Pacifism has been a guiding principle for Japan ever since Amendment 9, which is a concept deprived of liberalism that settles disputes through only non-military means. Therefore, The striking of the 9th amendment would signal a new era and unlock the restrictions that have been placed on Japan as a player in the region, potentially disrupting the balance of power in East Asia, since China would have to face not only American forces but also Japanese forces that act independently from the US. While removing the article 9 might seem to be increasing Japan’s defense capabilities, it might actually pose more trouble from other states, such as North Korea further increasing its spending on nukes while China further sends more aircraft to the Senkaku Islands and other disputed territories such as Taiwan to ensure their own national interest could still be maintained under the world where Japan is a military country no longer guided by Pacifism.
The status quo is that around 54,000 American troops are in Japan, making it extremely important for US strategic interest within the region. Thus, with all the different perspectives of different parties involved in Japan’s regional interests, article 9 might be the best way for Japan to head forward to ensure its security is protected by staying out of additional troubles.
To conclude, I believe that Japan’s Article 9 played the guiding role in shaping its national security policies in three ways: First, increasing its capabilities to protect its own national sovereignty. When faced with foreign threats like China, the self-defense force accompanied by Japan’s own economic power provides the equal footing for it to claim the Senkaku islands and express its own opinion on issues, thus prompting Japan to remain a very important international player; Second, expanding it’s military power to its fullest under the limitations of article 9 to get the best of both worlds of having and not having a military. This means that Japan allocates all the necessary funding to fund a functional military within the country with its policies in place and allows for the country’s forces to be strong enough to assist other countries and defend itself while being able to remain a pacifist approach in its national security and foreign affairs policy directions; Thirdly, sparking debates on the national level to challenge the status quo and thus shifting its future policies on security and foreign affairs. The existence of article 9 establishes a constitutional ground for Japan to be flexible on most foreign matters, with its military deployment under the framework provided by article 9. The debate happening in the country will continue, and we will see where that leads us.
