
Japan’s Parliament Approves Overseas Combat Role for Military - tomkwok
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/world/asia/japan-parliament-passes-legislation-combat-role-for-military.html
======
hkmurakami
>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.

~~~
unabst
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.

~~~
frivoal
Also gathered constitutional experts, tasked them to research whether this
would be constitutional (expecting them to say it was). When they concluded it
wasn't, the gvt apologized for hiring the wrong folks, and moved on.

------
thomasfoster96
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.

~~~
adrianN
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
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
Somehow I don't think we're going to see the fabled Japanese mechas run over
Europe and the US any time soon :)

~~~
toyg
This is not about the West, it's about the South China Sea. Chinese mechas
will fight it out with Japanese ones.

------
mathrawka
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
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
I don't think I've ever been by Kokkai Gijido where there wasn't some group
protesting something.

------
Jackersob
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
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
> 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#Budg...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-
Defense_Forces#Budget)

~~~
copsarebastards
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.

~~~
scribu
Thanks. I agree with your larger point, but wanted to clarify this detail,
because I've seen people around the web saying that Japan actually has no
security forces whatsoever.

~~~
mahranch
To clarify _your_ point, they don't. They have a self-defense force. They lack
any serious offensive power since they focus on mostly defensive armaments.

There are also pretty big differences between Japan's SDF and a modern
military. Only scraping the surface here, but members of the SDF can leave at
any time, for any reason since it's a purely volunteer position. This weakens
their military. They are afraid of being too hard on solidiers because if they
are, they'll leave. This means you have an army of weak soliders who may not
have the proper skills or training that an army like the U.S or China has.

This is why they need to be allowed to have a military. A country should be
able to defend itself and the strongest defense, is a powerful and potent
offense.

~~~
copsarebastards
> A country should be able to defend itself and the strongest defense, is a
> powerful and potent offense.

Ugh. Thousands of Americans died in September 11, which is the obvious result
of American military action in the Middle East, and thousands more died in the
following wars.

You can't just go around killing people and assume that they're not going to
attack you back. The best defense is a good foreign policy that avoids
conflict in the first place.

~~~
ethbro
> The best defense is a good foreign policy that avoids conflict in the first
> place.

Like some kind of hypothetical agreement with Iran?

~~~
copsarebastards
Yes. Keep in mind that currently anti-Western hostility in Iran are a direct
result of American imperialism during the Cold War. The Iran nuclear deal
framework wouldn't be necessary if the US hadn't tried to prevent democracy in
Iran in the 1970s.

~~~
ethbro
This is likely true, however there are a lot of strings if you pull on
anything associated with the Cold War. Even without leaning on domino theory
and assuming that Iran was better with a democratically elected government, I
don't think it's conclusive to say that "If the US hadn't been involved in
Iran, the world as a whole would have been a better place." I think Poland,
Hungary, and a lot of Eastern Europe are probably happier without the Soviet
Union?

As a friend in Jordan said, sometimes democracy isn't the best first step. And
I'd argue that both Atatürk and Nasser played pretty close to the line as
well.

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

~~~
thebmax
It could also very easily spin out of control and increase instability in
Asia.

~~~
Animats
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
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.

------
bane
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
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.

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

~~~
ceejayoz
> I wonder if they would like to buy any ... aircraft carriers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-
class_helicopter_destroy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo-
class_helicopter_destroyer)

~~~
gaius
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...

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

------
curiousjorge
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.

------
crdoconnor
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-
supp...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/obama-bribes-abe-support-tpp-
unleashing-japanese-military.html)

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.

~~~
nl
That analysis is pathetically bad. I'm no fan of the TPP, but one shouldn't
view every single thing that happens through that lens.

There's a number of things going on here:

1) The South China sea dispute is getting more and more dangerous. Japan wants
flexibility in making alliances to counterbalance China in that area.

2) This give Japan the ability to deploy troops (or more likely aircraft) to
the Middle East in support of US operations there. That likely to happen in
return for more active US support in the South China Sea.

3) There is always the North Korean factor. That really defies any sensible
analysis, but one can imagine circumstances where Japan would like to use
military forces against NK.

It's true that the TPP is seen in the Asia-Pacific as an anti-China move, but
it seems a comparatively minor part in this particular change in Japan's
military stance.

~~~
crdoconnor
>one shouldn't view every single thing that happens through that lens.

It doesn't.

Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in
public) almost overnight an the _only_ thing that changed in that period in
US-Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-
militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.

Ironically the deal might still fail (which Abe probably wouldn't mind since
the TPP is not good for Japan), meaning that this negotiating chip was given
away by Obama for free.

>it seems a comparatively minor part in this particular change in Japan's
military stance.

You are confusing the reasons why _Abe_ wanted to remilitarize (another topic
entirely) with the reasons why _Obama_ had the US state department give him
the green light.

~~~
tsotha
>Abe went from being very cool on the TPP to coming out in favor (at least in
public) almost overnight an the only thing that changed in that period in US-
Japan relations was the US state department giving Japan approval to re-
militarize. There were virtually no changes to the deal.

Abe has been pushing for constitutional changes since he returned to the PM's
office, and the US has been supportive all along since it means we'll be
putting fewer resources into guaranteeing Japan's defense.

This has been in the cards since before TPP even existed.

