Tuesday, April 30, 2013

To Celebrate Japan's Regaining of Independence?

     On the day before yesterday, 28 April, Mr.Abe Shinzo's government convened a meeting to celebrate Japan's regaining her independence 63 years ago.  It was the first of its kind.  There was a counter-meeting in Tokyo, and a huge gathering of people in Okinawa opposing it.
     It is true that Japan became independent again on this day in 1952, in the sense that the Peace Treaty, concluded at San Francisco in previous September, took effect on this day.   But there was hardly any atmosphere of celebration.  I was a student on this day, and the students may be called the most sensitive section of a society.  As I recall, this lack of celebrating mood came from two reasons.
     First, many countries in Asia, most familiar to us, including China, had been excluded from the peace process.  The Korean Peninsula was in the midst of a bloody and endless war.  The Soviet and the East European countries also did not join it, and this gave us the strong feeling that the Peace Treaty itself would intensify the Cold War.  It took us a long time afterwards to reestablish  relations with these nations.  Even now we do not have a Peace Treaty with Russia, and at this time of writing Mr.Abe is in Moscow conferring with their government on how to speed up the process.
     Secondly, and related to the above, the foreign troops were continuing to be stationed in the country.  The Allied Potsdam Declaration, in terms of which the occupation of Japan had been conducted, said that after the country was democratized the occupation forces would withdraw from Japan.  But now in terms of the US-Japan Security Pact, signed on the same day as the Peace Treaty but the contents of which were not fully known to our people, the occupation forces would stay on, under a different name but with little change in substance.  Even today there is little change.
     Nowhere was this feeling as strong as in Okinawa, which had been cut off from Japan proper by the Peace Treaty and was not returned until 1972.  Therefore it was declared at the gathering that this was their Day of Subordination and Humiliation, and they demanded the government should cancel the meeting it had convened.
     The mechanism by which Okinawa was separated was the planned transfer of Okinawa to an American-administered Trust Territory.  Fortunately it was given up.  But how?  Japan joined the UN in 1956.  The UN Charter says that a member country cannot be a trust territory.  Does it apply to a part of such a country?  I think it does.  Why, on what basis, then, was Okinawa under the occupation from 1956 to 1972?
     One more thing about the government meeting.  To the surprise of many, the Emperor and the Empress were present.  I think it is unconstitutional, as it does not fit in with any of what is stated in the Constitution as the Emperor's functions.  There presence, apparently sponsored by the government, is therefore politically motivated.  We are reminded that the LDP's draft Constitution wants to give a greater, perhaps much greater, political role to the Emperor.  When the meeting was over, those present, about 390 in all, mostly the conservative elements on the political spectrum, said "Hurrah" to the Emperor and the Empress.  Is this going to be the shape of things to come?  No, it is not, although opinion would be deeply split if a poll is taken.  It is the same with almost any thing, Constitution, security issues, relations with the US/Asian neighbours, even "Abenomics".      

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Japan's Position on Nuclear Weapons

     We will come back to the US-Japan military alliance and see how it really damages Japan's relations with her neighbours.
     Three days ago, on 24 April, the Japanese government refused to sign a South African-sponsored resolution before a meeting of a committee, held at Geneva, in connection with rethinking of the NPT(Non-Proliferation Treaty).  The resolution said that it would be in the best interest of the humanity not to use nuclear weapons 'under any circumstances', and it was to these words that Japan opposed.  It startled and angered many countries who signed it.  It also startled and angered many people in Japan.  Countries like the US, Russia and China also failed to sign.  Japan therefore put herself together with them, particularly with the US.
     Japan's Cabinet Secretary(a politician and not a bureaucrat) said in explanation of the decision that it was taken considering the difficult security environment in Asia.  He is suggesting here the possibility of the US using such weapons against some Asian country/countries.  He is also implying that in case hostilities begin Japan would automatically support such action.  Therefore the government is not conforming to that resolution.
     Let me tell the readers here a very strange thing.  Mr.Abe Shinzo's ruling LDP(Liberal Democratic Party)has published their draft Constitution.  The Article 9 of the present Constitution, with its provision of non-possession of war potential, has been made almost unrecognizable, as they want to introduce a provision for a National Defence Forces.  What is strange is that nowhere in the draft is stated who has the right to declare war.  Does it mean that the said Forces are supposed to fight on the side of the US Forces as their auxiliary?  That is the only plausible explanation.
     With this in mind they want to revise first Article 96, which says that an amendment, before it is placed before a referendum, should be approved by a two third majority in both Houses of the Parliament.  Their draft says that a simple majority is enough, justifying it by saying that it would bring the Constitution nearer to the people.  What a hypocritical way of saying it!  Their real target is Article 9, and in order to reach there Article 96 is, in their view, blocking the way.  More haste, less speed?             

Friday, April 26, 2013

Suzuki Yasuzo in Japan's Constitution-Making, 1945-6

     In the previous blog I have discussed the heightened tension in East Asia mainly from the point of the existing military alliances.  This, however, is not the whole picture.  It is also urgent to discuss the tension mounting between Japan on one hand and China and South Korea on the other, which are almost on the collision course at the moment.
     There are many phases to this, but the issue of Japan's Constitution is no less important than others.  There is a strong opinion among the conservative elements in Japan's politics that the present Constitution was imposed by the US Occupation soon after the end of the war, and we should have our own independent Constitution.  Sounds beautifully, but their main point is to make it legal to have National Defence Forces, and make it possible also for them to fight shoulder to shoulder with the US military.  It would make Japan more dependent on, and subservient to, the US politically and militarily, rather than otherwise.
     But here let me introduce Mr.Suzuki Yasuzo, on the basis of his own memoir, published in 1977, and see if the present Constitution is really a translation of an American draft and not more, as is claimed by the above-mentioned elements.  What he writes will show that it is not true.
     In a few months after the war, a small group of highly intelligent people, liberal-minded and in some cases a little left-of-the-centre, took shape with a view to make their own draft for a new Constitution.  Suzuki Yasuzo, then in his early 40s and a Constitutional expert, acted as its de facto secretary.  Finally seven persons signed it on 26 December, 1945.  It was a framework of a Parliamentary democracy with the Emperor only as the figurehead.  They gave the draft to the Prime Minister's secretary, newspaper people, and the GHQ.  The newspapers published the full text two days afterwards.  It was the first of its kind.
     The GHQ immediately translated the draft(there were two translated versions), gave it a scrutiny, and thought that it was democratic and acceptable.  There is no doubt that they took it as an important source of input, although I will not go into the details.  The study group was of the hope that the draft would be placed before a kind of a Constituent Assembly to be elected by the whole nation as well as others, and discussed there.  But the standard of political consciousness of the people had not come up to that and their hope was not materialized.
     The above would show that the American draft, handed to the Japanese Government in February 1946, had incorporated some of the indigenous ideas.  It is definitely beneath the dignity of those who call the present Constitution imposed by the Americans.
         

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Heightened Tension in East Asia

     On 22 April, four days ago, the US and South Korean forces, who are currently engaged in joint military exercises, made open part of what they are doing in the exercises.  They were landing at Pohang, in the East coast of South Korea, on the assumption that the port facilities of Pohang was damaged.  Pohang is probably the most important industrial centre in the ROK where the main steel plants of the POSCO are located.  But why such exercises at Pohang?  Because its landscape is similar to some portion of the Northern coast?
     The DPRK is demanding the immediate stoppage of the exercises, saying that it amounts to an act of war.  What they are saying itself is understandable.  But not the uncivilized way in which they are putting it!  It goes against all the perception of the Korean people as a sensible and sensitive people.  Everybody is now looking at their intimidation as a paper tiger.
     This writer, however, is also against such exercises for the reason that it has unnecessarily heightened the military tension in East Asia, and has unnecessarily provoked the DPRK.  They are militarily isolated.  Only on the south of the Parallel does the old Cold-War pattern of alliance exist.  Under such circumstances there is not much space for diplomacy, and diplomacy does not always work under the military pressure.
     What is more worrying to this writer is that some of the US units, Marines, taking part in the exercises have gone there from their bases in Okinawa, Japan.  This means that although there is no Japan-South Korean alliance, there is virtually a triangular one with the US as the pivotal power.  This means that in the event of hostilities, however unlikely, Japan may be dragged into it on the side of the US and against the DPRK against our will.  There is no reason whatsoever that we should fight them, or their possible allies, and we should never do so.
     Also on 22 April, the DPRK summoned a high-level talk and decided that the nuclear preparation should be put an emphasis on.  Apparently they cannot take care of the whole of the military field because of the resource shortage.  But they do want to be recognized as a nuclear power.  In their view that would put them on an equal footing with the US.    
     This writer is of the view that such a demand should be rejected out of hand.  But that can be effectively done only when the other nuclear powers make a serious effort to reduce their nuclear arsenal, including the means of delivery.  At the same time the DPRK should understand that, once it becomes such a power, it would get entangled in a fatal contradiction that the more they have, the more they have to spend, even more disregarding the life of their people, and irrevocably damaging their reputation in the eyes of the whole world.