| |
COMMENT
Japan: The high cost of being
'normal'
By Yumiko Nakagawa
Recent political and domestic developments have
encouraged speculation that Japan is using the military
to assume a higher international profile. The dispatch
of the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force fueling
ships to assist the United States in the Persian Gulf
and the recent Japanese cabinet decision to extend
logistic support for the US war on Afghanistan until May
19, 2003, seem to suggest that Japan is becoming a more
"normal" country through the use of its military. This
reasoning is further supported by the Japanese public's
call for the country to articulate more clearly its
national interest: Japan's new tough line against North
Korea is one piece of the "evidence" for this claim.
If Japan is indeed becoming more willing to
speak out and act on behalf of its national interest,
then it is a becoming a normal nation. However, these
steps toward normalcy are impeded by a fundamental
obstacle - naivete. The Japanese people are not ready to
pursue the national interest if it will result in
bloodshed.
Expanding military roles overseas -
either through United Nations forces or in alliance with
the United States - for the sake of becoming a "normal
country" ultimately means Japanese soldiers will fight -
and die - for the country's national interest. However,
the Japanese public seems incapable of dealing with the
consequences of such a sacrifice.
When United
Nations volunteer Nakata Atsuhito, a member of the UN
Transition Authority in Cambodia, was shot by guerrillas
in Cambodia in April 8, 1993, the entire nation wept.
Similarly, the North Korean abductees issue has
triggered an emotional reaction. The Japanese public has
focused on the fate of 13 people to the virtual
exclusion of North Korea's nuclear or weapons of mass
destruction capability. These international concerns
were given virtually no attention in the Japanese
media's reports on the abductees. Personal stories
overwhelmed discussion of the issue from the broader
perspective of national interest.
Weighing
national interests against the cost of blood is never
easy. Every society treasures the lives of its young
soldiers and does not want to send them to die. The
shrinking family size in industrialized societies make
their governments even more reluctant to sacrifice its
youth. The prospect of casualties has a significant
impact on military policy planning. The United States
was reluctant to send ground troops into
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Afghanistan: instead, air strikes
were used to minimize causalities. The deaths of fewer
than two dozens US soldiers were enough for the United
States to pull troops from Somalia. A key question
hanging over any attack on Iraq is, "Is getting rid of
Saddam Hussein worth our people's lives?"
The
pursuit of national interest through military forces
tests Japan's democracy. It requires the Japanese public
to focus on the national interest when setting national
objectives, and weigh them against the human costs when
making a policy decision. The Japanese people need to
realize the possible consequences of such decisions and
be responsible for them. The democracy that gives the
Japanese government permission to expand military roles
means the public cannot blame anyone else for an
unpopular outcome. Japanese citizens will be responsible
for the acts of Japanese soldiers. Unlike in the
previous war, neither the emperor nor generals can be
held responsible. Ultimately, the question involves the
accountability of Japan's democracy.
With
Japan's nationalism on the rise, it might be natural for
some Japanese to expect that their armed forces will
play more active military roles. If the call for such a
military role is just an expression of nationalism, the
Japanese people need to think more creatively about
other options for expanding the country's international
presence before concluding that the military option is
best. For example, pacifism still can be a source of
national pride rather than an obstacle of it. By
enhancing its diplomatic ability and its defense
capability, Japan could take pride in its continuing
renunciation of the right to wage aggressive war. Also,
Japan's role in nuclear non-proliferation can be
promoted, and the test cases are North Korea and the
People's Republic of China. Japan should pursue a
nuclear non-proliferation policy that possibly includes
using foreign aid.
Japan has a right to play a
military role - subject to constitutional and
international legal constraints - but clearly Japan is
not ready to take such a step.
Nakagawa
Yumiko is Vasey Fellow at Pacific Forum
CSIS, a Honolulu-based think-tank. She can
be reached at vfpf@hawaii.rr.com.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
