WHY JAPAN HAS NO ARMED FORCE?

The administration says that all it has are self-defense forces. Whatever you choose to call them, Japan has more than all but eight other nations, with $49 billion annually.

In an identical vein, Japan vehemently rejects any nuclear proliferation. However, it voted against ratifying a UN non-proliferation pact in 2017.

JAPAN’S 3 NON-NUCLEAR PRINCIPLES:

1. NO POSSESSION

2. NO PRODUCTION

3. NO INTRODUCTION

Additionally, it keeps a surprisingly sizable stockpile of plutonium. And an essential part of America's defense is its nuclear weapons arsenal. And lastly, it does not construct aircraft carriers. Just a "helicopter destroyer," really. The nation with the third-largest economy in the world hasn't fought a war or fired a shot in battle in the past 70 years.

The country's devotion to peace was described as a "historically unparalleled experiment" by its Prime Minister in 1977.

Japan, nation committed to peace, rejects the role of a military power, and on that basis is resolved to contribute to the peace and prosperity of Southeast Asia, and of the world community.

- TAKEO FUKUDA (PRIME MINISTER) [17TH AUGUST 1997]

Japan has remained an almost unique light of hope in an alternative in a world where "large country" is synonymous with "big military." However, many would contend that Japan will eventually become a "normal" country given the growing dangers from China, North Korea, and Russia, which are neighbors. Some would argue that it already has—in everything but name. But the reality is much more nuanced.

Putting a vague idea like "peace" into words in a legal document takes much effort. The notion that an authoritarian, violent society might be changed into a free, democratic, and peaceful one by merely introducing a whole set of values, such as pacifism, is ludicrous. However, that is precisely what the Americans tried to do in the wake of Japan's total surrender in World War II.

General Douglas MacArthur made three basic demands as the United States started drafting the constitution for Japan after the war:

One forbade the nation from ever going to war, not even in self-defense. It would be wholly dependent on other people's protection to survive.

Article 9 of the Constitution, which states that "the Japanese people eternally renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation... the land, sea, and air forces, as well as additional war capability, will never be maintained," was ultimately enacted.

Take note of the absence of "self-defense." Although the constitution's wording left what would later become a $49 billion a year loophole, its spirit remained as initially intended. Maybe the only surprise was how swiftly it was taken advantage of. Who pressured Japan's militarization five years after America adopted its pacifist constitution? The Americans, of course! In 1947, the Peace Constitution went into effect.

The Communist Party seized power in China in 1949. Moreover, the Korean War started in 1950. Japan quickly transformed from being viewed as a severe threat that an equal force could only neutralize to a crucial ally in the war against Communism. Japan was left defenseless when American troops were dispatched to fight in Korea, leading to the establishment the 75,000-person National Police Reserve. The Police Reserve was not officially in charge of maintaining foreign security, making it neither an army nor unconstitutional.

Tanks and other military hardware left behind by the United States were given euphemistic names like "special vehicles." The Prime Minister claimed that the Safety Force, created from the Police Reserve two years later, still lacked "war potential." The Japanese "Self-Defense Forces" advanced two years later and have since resisted decades of constitutional challenges. It would be incorrect to categorize its armed forces as "normal" in all but name.

They are not feeble, but they are heavily restrained. They struggle to fill posts since, for example, they do not benefit from conscription. Additionally, they are not permitted to own some offensive weapons like intercontinental ballistic missiles. It's fair to say that Japan has engaged in all linguistic and mental gymnastics to defend things like their aircraft carrier that isn't an "aircraft carrier." Claiming that it can obtain any weapon or act in any manner similar to other militaries would also be an exaggeration. There are still restrictions, even though they are sometimes quite blatant.

Now, theoretically, Article 9 may be changed. A simple majority in a popular referendum is also required in addition to two-thirds of the Diet, the country's legislative body, to change the constitution. But in its 74-year history, this has never been accomplished. In actuality, it is the oldest unaltered constitution in existence. The fundamental barrier is cultural rather than legal. Understanding pacifism as a result of the war rather than as a value imposed upon Japan by American conquerors will help explain why. Despite the U.S.'s desire to take credit, determining the actual cause is essential to gauging the impact's longevity. Legal documents can be changed, but defining the problem solely in legal terms obscures the cultural barrier, which is considerably more challenging to remove.

In World War II, the Japanese population lost almost 3 million lives. A total of 20% of dwellings were destroyed. It also suffered from being the only human population on which nuclear weapons were used during the war. It is believed that Japanese society developed several coping techniques in response to this severe psychological toll, including, First, there is a need to give purpose to a death that would otherwise be senseless.

Second, placing all blame on the military establishment helps one maintain their sense of innocence. In other words, resisting militarism meant letting go of agency while acknowledging and learning from the past, whether or not it was justifiable. Since then, Japan has likewise developed an association between peace and wealth.

A sharp improvement followed rapid economic growth in quality of living. Education is a significant factor in why these values are still relevant after all these years. Despite being less prominent than it once was, the Teacher's Union has opposed initiatives to change the curriculum. Additionally, academia serves as an essential brake on militarism. The distinction between academics and soldiers is so frequently blurred in China that the American government may easily find an excuse to reject and occasionally torment almost any Chinese academic. Most scientists would find it difficult to decline support.

However, "dual-use" grants—civil technology that also has specific military applications—are forbidden in Japanese institutions. No one group in society is exempt from this ingrained distrust. One of the 76 peace museums spread across the nation's 32 prefectures has been the destination of almost every class field trip. One and alone, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum has had over 74 million visitors. Unfortunately, some museums downplay Japan's wartime behavior. Since everyone who visits has a great antipathy to violence, few oppose American engagement.

When considered collectively, all of these factors produce a specific sentiment among the general public. However, it cannot reasonably be called "Pacifism" because 125 million individuals do not fit under any ideology. The strictest meaning of "pacifism" is a complete renunciation of violence, even self-defense. It also suggests a unified, cohesive guiding ideology, but people are complex. Some contend that its defense capabilities are outdated. Although the Japanese people favor the right to self-defense, they are against its actualization.

In contrast, a sizable majority — 78 percent in one poll — believe that starting a war is justified in response to an attack. However, hardly anybody is eager to do so. Only 13 percent of Japanese people say they are willing to fight for their nation, compared to 88 percent of Chinese, 77 percent of Taiwanese, and 67 percent of South Koreans. The present Conservative government's objectives and the general public's opinions are drastically at odds with one another. Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo turned to reinterpretation after he could not change the constitution. The total defense sounds somewhat like this:

Most people think Japan should continue to use at least the bare minimum of force necessary for self-defense. What that level is is the matter at hand. Conservatives contend that while defense spending has increased throughout East Asia, it has stayed the same in Japan, at around 1 percent of GDP.

According to this perspective, a stable military budget entails falling power as competitors increase their own. They assert as well that altered global expectations exist. Wherever it occurs, failing to stop violence is no longer seen as neutrality but rather as tacit support or, at the very least, as disgraceful inaction. In terms of policy, this entails deliberately preserving tranquility in its neighborhood or the Middle East. This was dubbed "Proactive Pacifism" by Abe Shinzo. Its detractors refer to it as "not pacifism," asserting that it heralds a new era of militarism and militarization and a complete rejection of the Peace Constitution.

It's crucial to contextualize these shifts, however. A constitutional amendment was proposed to officially permit the existence of self-defense troops, which Japan already has. The people would almost probably reject something more concrete if it vehemently rejected even that verbal change. Just for a moment, consider the possibility that a concept like "Peace" could be gauged along a single continuum. If pacifism were on one side, militarization—when the military aggressively devours a society—would be on the other -- think North Korea.

In the middle would be the quote "normal" nations - those happy to have military and reassuringly willing to deploy them would be in the center. Japan may be moving in the right direction, but normalcy has not yet been achieved. The Conservative government may make it seem like the future is set in stone as it enacts security regulations, redefines pacifism, and invests in new technology. But the fundamental tension persists: Most people think of pacifism as an adjective—a neutral state of being if you will—whereas the current government defines it as a verb—an action, the absence of which would enable violence.

Is proactive pacifism just a polite way of saying militarism that appeals to the masses, or does it represent a fresh take on a 70-year-old ideal? Finally, addressing the proverbial "elephant in the room," the U.S. security guarantee, will help us respond to this query. In reality, the United States Government is a third party in the negotiations between politicians and citizens. How they interact with one another will determine the future of pacifism in Japan's Pacific Paradox.