RUNNING HEAD: REPEALING ARTICLE 9

Japan Repealing Article 9 and its Subsequent Effects on the Asia Pacific Region

Geo Warrick GMA 460 Dr. Nincic

1 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9

Abstract

After World War Two, Japan was in a state of reformation under the political and military influence of the United States. As a result of their aggression and actions during the war, the

United States imposed a new constitution for their government. This new constitution had an article that forbade Japan from having a standing military and denied Japan the right to wage war ever again. Article 9 has been in Japan's constitution for over seventy years and is now up for debate on whether or not the article should be repealed. The population of Japan is split on this decision due to the humiliation of acts during the Second World War. In the modern geopolitical climate, Japan is facing threats such as an aggressive superpower like China who is violating territorial boundaries with Japan. Also, foes such as North Korea, a rogue regime with nuclear weapon capabilities. Many other countries in the Asia Pacific region do not want Japan to have a formal military anymore because of resentment from World War Two. However, there is a multitude of changes going on regarding international relations with Japan's strongest allies. This leads Japan with the necessity to be able to provide their own nation with defense.

2 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9

Introduction

In the years following the Second World War, many countries in the Asian Pacific region was in the process of rebuilding. Japan was one of these countries since their conditional surrender the United States imposed a new rule of law for the reborn nation. As a result, their constitution was redrafted and out of that came Article 9. This article states: “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. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized”(“The Constitution of Japan,” 1946).

This made Japan adopt a new pacifist constitution, allowing them never again to have a traditional military. The term pacifist concerning the Japanese constitution means that the

Japanese do not have the right of belligerency or in short, the right to wage war (Hermesauto,

2017). Seventy years later, this is now a topic of debate not only within Japanese politics but amongst the people as well. One group of people want to remain a pacifist country while another group wants to have a more traditional military and have Japan be nationalistic again. Many fear that the repercussions of the decision if Japan does repeal their ninth article, what will happen to the country? Not to forget that there are other significant players in the region that this will likely effect. Japan is walking on a thin line between aggravating its rogue neighbors and having many other international repercussions that might take place if they decide to change Article 9. This is having questions arise from the citizens of Japan as well as other states from the international scene. The problem is, what is likely to happen to the country as well as what will happen to the 3 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 geopolitical sphere that is the Asia Pacific region? This choice can have excellent benefits for

Japan or can lead them down a similar road to that of World War Two.

Thesis Statement

If Japan goes through with repealing their ninth article in their constitution, the effects will cause a geopolitical divide between the neighboring countries in the Asia Pacific Region.

Research Questions

Questions that this thesis will cover are, what caused Japan to have a pacifist article in their constitution? Along with how has this article shaped modern Japanese politics and society?

Lastly, what will happen to the geopolitical region of Pacific Asia if Japan repeals Article 9 and has a more traditional and offensive capable military?

History/Background

Early Era of Japanese Aggression

The road to Japan's actions began nearly a decade before the United States involvement in World War Two. In the early 1930's Japan ferociously and aggressively began to expand their territories in order to spread its sphere of influence. The Imperial Japanese Armed Forces took over areas in China as well as invaded territories in the Soviet Union.

Along with these territories that they took over close to their mainland, they began to invade islands across the Pacific Ocean. This, in turn, became known as the Era of Japanese

Aggression. During the 1920s and 1930s, Japan was facing a significant economic problem triggered by a lack of natural resources such as iron, rubber, and oil(“The Early War in the

Pacific | Boundless US History,” n.d.). The lack of natural resources caused them to want to 4 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 acquire territories in order to establish economic self-sufficiency and further support their theory of isolationism. With this new strategy on the board of Japanese military officials, they began to look towards the greater East Asia region, specifically Manchuria China. This invasion of

Manchuria was justified by what is known as the Mukden Incident. In September of 1931, there was an attempt to blow up a portion of Japanese railroad in Manchuria. The attempt failed, and the Japanese Army invaded the next day with this incident as the driving factor. As the years went on Japan eventually wanted more territory to exploit and looked towards greater China.

They invaded China in 1937, eventually making the conflict known as the Second Sino-Japanese

War. After successfully conquering Shanghai, the Japanese Army went on to capture more

Chinese cities. By the end of 1937, they captured the Chinese Nationalist city of Nanking.

Subsequently, they began systematically killing, raping and pillaging the city of Nanking(“The

Early War in the Pacific | Boundless US History,” n.d.). This became known as the “Rape of

Nanking” and shed light on the beginning of the Era of Japanese Aggression.

A year later, the Japanese invaded territory that belonged to the Soviet Union. This led to what is known as the battle of Lake Khasan. The Japanese Army used the reasoning that the

Soviet Union got the boundary wrong and was impeding on their rightfully owned territory that was outlined in the Treaty of Peking. This resulted in the Battle of Khallkin Gol where the

Japanese suffered exponential losses and was more of a pyrrhic victory for Japan. A neutrality pact was signed, and the Soviet Union promised to respect the territory that Japan had rightfully owned as long as Japan did not try to go any further in the Soviet Union(“The Early War in the

Pacific | Boundless US History,” n.d.).

World War II 5 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 In September of 1940, Japan signed an alliance with Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy called the Tripartite Pact. This was to establish mutual protection as well as cooperation both technologically as well as economically. This then caused the United States to place an oil

Embargo on Japan, leading Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in the following months. The goal was to cripple the United States Navy long enough for Japan to establish a buffer zone in Southeast

Asia and enhance the abilities to defend it. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, this led the United

States to declare war on Japan which fully immersed them into both theatres of the Second

World War. The Japanese aggression did not stop here. In the following days of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Army and Navy launched simultaneous attacks on Hong Kong, British Malay, and the Philippines. During these campaigns that the Japanese Army carried out, they massacred thousands of Chinese, American troops and Filipinos as well(“The Early War in the Pacific |

Boundless US History,” n.d.) They captured vital points for oil in and around the country of

Indonesia and seized strategic islands in the Pacific in order to supply their war machine.

To combat the growing Japanese empire, the United States and Allied Forces launched an offensive on the Island of Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. This battle lasted from August to

November and ended in an allied victory. Not only was this a huge blow to the moral of the mighty Japanese Imperial Navy and Army, but it was also the turning point of the war(“The

Early War in the Pacific | Boundless US History,” n.d.). This changed the allied outlook on the

Japanese military and led to more offensive rather than defensive operations throughout the

Pacific.

Following more battles in the Pacific, and the Allied forces getting closer to mainland

Japan, a solution for a more expedited surrender from Japan was in the works. The Potsdam

Declaration was issued in July on 1945 by President Truman, Prime Minister Churchill, and 6 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 President Chiang Kai-shek of China. These three nations were meeting to draft post-war policies in the Pacific Region. The Potsdam Declaration called for the Japanese to surrender and provided defining terms for the surrender. These terms outlined the post-war plan after Japans ultimate surrender. However, the third paragraph hints towards the usage of the two atomic bombs that were used in the following weeks of this declaration (Butow, 1954).

Further, into the declaration, the three nations outline a plan for Japan's occupation and recovery after their surrender. The subsequent paragraphs delve into what the Allied forces plan to do in Japan. In many cases, the baseline is that they want to re-establish stability in not only in the nation but in the greater Pacific region. The Potsdam Declaration also outlines that the allied powers intend to try war criminals, not enslave the Japanese people (which was popular belief), remove any opposition to re-establishing stability, provide fundamental rights such as freedom of religion and speech as well as respect basic human rights (Butow, 1954).

Analyzing the Potsdam Declaration, it can be seen as a precursor to what will be written in the new Japanese Constitution at the end of World War Two. What was written and planned out in the Potsdam Declaration was the foundation for the allied commanders to build off of and create the modern constitution and the most notable article, Article 9. The actions of Japan and their era of aggression in the continental Asian as well as the Pacific region is the reason why this article exists. In the following years, their constitution will adapt and grow based off of the atrocities and crimes committed during the war.

Japan in the Post War Era

After Japan’s surrender in World War Two, the allied forces came in and occupied the politically crippled states. In September of 1945, General Douglas MacArthur took command of 7 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 a coalition occupation force known as the Supreme Command of Allied Powers (SCAP). The primary mission of SCAP was to focus on rebuilding and bringing back stability to Japan. The plan that General McArthur had was broken up into three phases. The first phase was the most crucial change that Japan was to go through as it set the baseline for what their country was to become. The first phase began with SCAP dismantled the Japanese military and banned all former military officers from taking on political roles in the new government that was being set up. This new government was established by putting in a parliamentary system and making the emperor a figurehead without political power. The focus then shifted on what to do about the

Japanese military. SCAP relinquished Japans right to wage war in fear of them repeating what they did throughout the second world war. This was set into effect by limiting Japan to strictly maintain defensive military forces only (“Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian,”

1952). The decision to limit Japan’s military capabilities led to the policies drawn in the third phase of this plan. Important aspects that came out of this third aspect was that America would protect Japan by signing a bilateral security pact between the two nations. This security pact ensured that the United States could maintain military bases in and around the Japanese mainland as well as further solidified the commitment to Japan only maintaining a self-defense force(“Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian,” 1952).

Modern Japan Under Article 9

Years after SCAP left and Japan was able to run self-sufficiently, many believe that modern Japanese society is drifting away from the basis of Article 9 in their constitution. As of today, Japan is in the top twenty of the largest militaries in the world with around 247,000 service members(“29 Largest Armies In The World,” 2018). This deviates from the whole idea of being a pacifist state. There is a division in the Japanese legal system between smaller courts 8 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 and the supreme court about the constitutionality of the nation having a self-defense force. The

Japanese Supreme Courts state that Japan has a right to defend itself as a sovereign country and that it is an inalienable right of a nation state (Port, 2005). This argument has plagued Japanese society for decades as there is a division in popular opinion about whether or not Japan should have even maintained a defensive force.

The Japanese political system has always been split down the middle regarding their defense policies. The root of it was the initial bilateral security agreement between the United

States and Japan. A result of this agreement was that there were US occupational troops that were still stationed in Japan. This caused disdain between traditional nationalists and the more pacifist left. Both sides garnered some support of the new pacifist article, but there were specific facts that each side was against, and that is what created the political division. The more nationalistic right was in favor of the alliance with the United States, but did not want limitations on their military as well as wanted to seek more independence from the United States(“Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty | Asia for Educators | Columbia University,” n.d.). On the other side of the spectrum was the liberal left, whom loosely supported a self-defense force, but entrusted most of Japan's security to the United States(“Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security

Treaty | Asia for Educators | Columbia University,” n.d.). The division that this has created has been plaguing Japan for centuries and has carried over into modern Japanese politics. Currently,

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to repeal the article and bring Japan back to the independent military power it once was.

Article 9’s Reinterpretations

Article 9 has been a discussion in Japan for years, and there have been steps taken in order for the article to be changed. When Japan's new constitution was first drafted in 1946, 9 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Article 9 forbade Japan from having any standing military what so ever. This turned in 1954 when the United States had just finished their involvement in the Korean War. Under the Mutual

Defense Assistance Agreement of 1954, the United States would allow a limited Japanese military as long as it could establish permanent bases on Japanese soil (“Japan and Its Military,”

2006). The three reinterpretations that have been proposed to other Japanese political parties and the citizens are,

Version 1 which keeps the two clauses of renouncing the right of belligerency and prohibiting Japan from having any war potential. However, in this version, there would be an addition of a clause to formalize the existence of the Japanese Self Defense Forces(“The End of

Japan’s Peace Clause?,” 2018). The second version is also keeping the two clauses unchanged and adding a third that clarifies Japan’s inherent right to self-defense. This version is not very different from the first one, but it definitely would weakling the limitations that Article 9 imposes (“The End of Japan’s Peace Clause?,” 2018). Finally, the third version is to remove

Article 9 from the constitution completely. This would eliminate all limitations that Article 9 imposes and would allow the Japanese Self Defense Forces to transition into a formalized military with capabilities that they have not had since the new constitution was drafted (“The

End of Japan’s Peace Clause?", 2018). The third option is the most popular amongst Prime

Minister Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party. However, it does not sit well with the citizens of

Japan (“Tens of thousands rally in Tokyo against Abe’s push to rewrite Article 9,” 2017). These three versions of reinterpretation of Article 9 allow there to be more freedom of movement for the Japanese Self Defense Forces. All three provide the SDF with the ability to involve themselves in foreign wars with the specification that the involvement is only towards the defense of Japan, its allies and their interests. 10 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Article 9 and its Effect on Japanese Politics

Today, Prime minister Abe is still facing this problem with the divide between left and right. Japanese Prime minister Abe whose family has been in Japanese politics for generations is having a difficult time on uniting the country to carry out with repealing the article. Abe must be able to please the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) as well as the Japanese Innovation Party (JIP).

(Bosak, 2017.) These two parties are an integral part of this decision that Abe must make because as they make up a vast majority of Japanese politics. This also must go through the people as well because Japan's constitution states that while a two-thirds vote within parliament is necessary, the people must also have a say in what they want (Weeks, 2017). The people of

Japan are split on this decision. Supporters are taking to the street to spread the word on the issue.

On the contrary, people who oppose the repealing of Article 9 are protesting in the streets as well. The people of Japan are also split on this decision (Reynolds & Hirokawa, 2017). A lot of people along with Japanese Officials fear that this change will entangle Japan in conflicts with other countries. This is causing fear and disdain for some of the population, while others are ready to fight for their country no matter what the case be (Sekiguchi, 2014). Abe faces a challenging task ahead as he must find a way to unite the politics and people of both parties.

Article 9 and Political Divide

Abe must make deals and referendums within his party the Liberal Democratic Party

(LDP). The LDP is known for having other microcosms within itself which makes trying to get anything done a challenging task (Bosak, 2017). This creates even more division and disdain within the party since there are multiple factions within one party. This is inefficient and can 11 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 delay the process even further. The LDP has already begun drafting a new revision of Article 9 as early as February of 2018. However, within the LDP there is a split decision on exactly what to do with the article. For example, the former party secretary general Shigeru Ishiba want to get rid of the clause altogether rather than revise it (Asia Times Staff, 2018). This difference of opinion within the Liberal Democratic Party's ranks is causing more and more of a challenge for the prime minister. Ishiba is trying to garner more support to eradicate Article 9 entirely and have no type of regulation on the capabilities of the Japanese military (Yoshida, 2018). This push from Ishiba is taking more of a radical stance due to the nature of what Ishiba wants compared to

Abe’s vision of repealing Article 9. The difference between the two is that Abe wants to repeal the pacifist clause in the constitution in order to strengthen the defense of their state from current aggressors such as China and North Korea all while restoring a sense of nationalism in the nation. From this, Abe also does not want to act like the atrocities of the second world war never happened and wants to portray that Japan is capable of change.

On the other hand, Ishiba is pushing for certain clauses within Article 9 to be erased entirely. He has demanded that the second paragraph of the article be removed. This paragraph denies Japan the "right of belligerency of the state" or in short denies Japan the right to wage war

(Yoshida, 2018). This defeats the purpose for the whole reason why Abe and other politicians want to repeal the constitution. With Ishiba focusing on getting rid of the right of belligerency clause, many countries can take this as another attempt at Japanese aggression, and this will likely cause many issues on the international stage.

This will most likely be one of Abe’s toughest political challenges. In politics no matter what state, not everybody is going to be pleased. However, in order for Abe to carry out the plan of repealing Article 9, he must have a vast majority of Japanese politicians on board with the 12 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 decision. Abe plans on gaining this majority by increasing support for the notion from the other political party the Japan Innovation Party (JIP). If Abe wins the favor of the JIP, he can quickly achieve the two-thirds majority vote (Bosak, 2017). Since the JIP is so essential to Abe's plan, this can lead to the JIP potentially taking advantage of Abe. The JIP knows how crucial they are to the outcome of the proposal and Abe fears that they will use this to secure more political positions for their party (Bosak, 2017). Prime minister Abe has a lot of friction to deal with when it comes to trying to gain support from both parties. Pleasing both parties all while trying to please the people and the international community seems like an impossible task not only for

Abe but for the rest of his party as well. Considering the fact that the current constitution has never been changed or revised, many people like it that way and do not want it to be replaced.

On the other hand, the more nationalistic politicians and people are discontents with the fact that foreigners wrote their nations constitution in the first place (Hornung, 2017). Trying to mend all the parties together under one common train of thought will present Abe and other leaders with a tough challenge. However, most believe that the LDP’s push for revision of the pacifism article will fail.

Abe and Article 9

Abe must also shift focus from the political realm to what the people want as well. This is one of the most important aspects because the people must have a say in the proposal to repeal

Article 9 in a vote. In Japan, popular public opinion means political capital (Bosak, 2017). For

Abe to gain more public opinion, he will find himself attempting to unify the two different schools of thoughts amongst the Japanese people. The population in Japan is split between the more nationalistic and the pacifist sides. It is divided forty-nine percent in favor of repealing 13 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Article 9 and forty-seven percent opposing the change (“Japanese Sharply Divided Over

Revising Article 9 Amid Regional Security Threats, Foll Finds,” 2017).

With the population split almost fifty-fifty, Abe has a tumultuous task of gathering support from the leftists so that the vote can sway in his favor. Currently, this is a significant issue on a lot of Japanese citizens minds. Many people are exercising their right to rally, and protest based on the proposal brought up by the Japanese government. People who oppose the act took to the streets in the thousands in order to show distaste for the push for a more traditional

Japanese military. Citizens believe that repealing the article will lead Japan down the same road it went down in their era of aggression (“Tens of thousands rally in Tokyo against Abe’s push to rewrite Article 9,” 2017). This is an interesting way of thinking for the Japanese people because saying such a statement as such is very vague. While their fear is rational, the irrational sense that it will lead Japan down the same road as World War Two, the way that the international community is set up today, nobody would let that happen. Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations are tasked with specifically not allowing countries to go down a road of imperialism. The nationalists want Japan to be more self-sufficient in a militaristic sense because they believe that that will restore pride in the country. Also, Japan is an extremely well- developed nation and want to exercise their right to operate as a sovereign country and not have to rely solely on the United States for protection(Ford, 2014). In essence what the right side wants is Japan to exercise its right of inherent self-defense.

The modern world presents different threats from that of the mid-twentieth century. This is what many people in Japan fear. Japan's neighbors, China, and North Korea are an imminent threat to the safety and sovereignty of Japan. Prime Minister Abe is not looking to create a warmongering state like Imperial Japan. Abe has stated that “The course Japan has taken as a 14 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 peace-loving nation will remain unchanged. Rather, Japan will continue these steps to consolidate that position further. It is precisely our determination towards that end that permeates today's Cabinet Decision” (Matake, 2014). Abe's goal is to keep Japan as a peaceful state, he as well as others want the country to be able to protect itself if the need ever arises. Many people are still dissatisfied with this reasoning that Abe has provided. This is the issue with gaining public support on the issue; many people in Japan do not see a reason to need a larger military because the United States has a very significant presence in the region. A result of the SCAP and the new constitution written for Japan, there was a clause saying that the United States could maintain military installations in and around the Japanese mainland. Currently, there are twenty- three US military installations in Japan all with a different role and full of warfighting capable troops, vehicles, aircraft, and equipment (“US Military Bases in Japan | 23 US Bases |

MilitaryBases.com,” n.d.). The United States having all of these military bases, already presents a large and capable force ready to protect Japan as outlined in the security agreement between both countries. The political left sees this and thinks that this is sufficient enough for defense on top of the country’s self-defense force. However, this is an issue with the nationalists because they see this as Japan being weak and relying too much on another country for defense.

Prime Minister Abe has a lot of political and societal gaps to bridge in order to achieve his goal of repealing Article 9. The likelihood of the Japanese government repealing this clause in their constitution has no definite answer. However, the current majority of Japanese politics is in favor of this change. The division mainly comes from the Japanese citizens and their views on the subject. On the one hand, he must find a way to please both major political parties without giving in too much to one side. Trying to balance all of this in the political realm is going to be rigorous for Abe due to how split politicians are on the subject. On the opposing side, trying to 15 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 please the citizens is going to be a crucial feat for Abe and his party if he intends to repeal this article. The Japanese citizens will have the final say in whether or not this is what they want in their society. Their support is crucial, so Abe must work tremendously hard to sway public opinion in his favor. However, what will this mean for Japan in the sense of international relations with volatile neighboring countries such as China and North Korea? Abe must take into account not only how Japan will react to this decision, but how the world will react if Article 9 gets repealed.

Lastly, another considerable challenge that Abe faces is the time frame in which he has to make any changes to Article 9. Abe does not have a long time to work with this move to amend the constitution, and he must find a way to mobilize his LDP to press ahead with Article 9.

However, he is strategically using upcoming events that in the LDP's opinion will "bolster national pride"(Tau, 2018). Two of these significant events are the new emperor taking the throne in 2019 and the Summer Olympics in 2020. Abe and the LDP hope that these two events will increase national pride and sway voters to want a stronger and more independent Japan.

Article 9 and its Effect on International Relations

Japan as a state, is part of a macro level of cooperative agreements with multiple other countries all over the world. If they choose to make this decision, Japan must be ready to deal with the consequences that concur with all of the other countries they are involved with. In the region of Pacific Asia, leading countries of influence are Japan, South Korea, China, and North

Korea. Also, the United States has a significant presence in the area now and plays a large part in the international relations between all of the countries. In recent years, nations such as China and

North Korea have become aggressors in the region and continuously threaten Japan's sovereignty with territorial disputes and nuclear weapons. Japan is now backed into a corner and must choose 16 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 between their inherent right of self-defense or pleasing the international community by keeping their pacifist clause in their constitution.

Currently, Japan is bound to a sixty-year bi-lateral defense pact with the United States.

This states that if another state ever attacks Japan, the United States would be there to help them fight off the adversary. This is important due to the new aggression of China and North Korea.

Japan and China are having cold conflicts over an island chain in the East China Sea known as the Senkaku Islands. These islands have caused a lot of ill feelings between the two nations and are leading to China taunting Japan (Tamkin, 2016). The conflicts over these islands are a valid reason for Japan to be able to protect themselves over disputed territory. North Korea is also beginning to taunt Japan with the threat of a nuclear strike. In late 2017, North Korea threatened to make Japan "disappear" with nuclear weapons(Johnson, 2017). These two countries present a significant threat to Japan, and for the country's military to be limited, many feel unsafe and that

Japan is being pushed around by bullies in the region. Japan's right for self-defense is essential in this case since their most significant threats are within very close proximity to their homeland.

The threats are different in modern times than when their new constitution was drafted in the mid-1940s. A need to update their constitution is needed in order to be able to deal with the new threats they face in the modern era.

Japan and China

The relationship between Japan and China has been an uneasy one since the conclusion of World War Two. China has been able to build up the largest military in the world and is exercising its might all over the Asia Pacific region. China has recently been taunting Japan by sending submarines into Japanese territorial waters and flying bombers over Japanese airspace as well (Kelly, 2018). This escalation of force from the Chinese is causing fear amongst the 17 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Japanese people and military leaders. Comparing the two states regarding military size and capability, the Chinese dwarfs the Japanese by tenfold. The Chinese People's Liberation Army

(PLA) has a long-term goal of building a military force to that similar to the United States in regard to size, technology, and capabilities. In 2018, China spent upwards of 1.11 trillion yuan

($175 Billion) on their defense budget. This is more than three times of what Japan spent in the past year (Kelly, 2018). The issue that Japan faces in this predicament is that they are forced to a particular limitation of their defenses, and one of the biggest aggressors in the region possess the capability to defeat the Japanese self-defense forces without much difficulty. China is currently the largest soft power nation in the Asian Pacific region. They have the largest population and economy as well as hold the most influence over the area. Compared to Japan, they exponentially beat the small country in that realm. In terms of population, there is a stark contrast between the two nations. For one China has recently abolished their one-child policy, as result birth rates are on the rise. On the contrary, Japan's society is seeing a drastic decrease in birth rates as a whole (Fischer, 2016).

China's military builds up in the South and East China Seas are causing a multitude of

International relations issues with all the countries in that region. China is being seen as an aggressor in the Pacific and Japan has the potential of being alone if anything were to happen between the two countries. China is claiming that their recent build up is strictly defensive even though it encroaches on other states territories. Along with their physical build up on islands, they are running more military exercises in the region (Johnson, 2018). China also has another reasoning; it is the overall lack of trust in Japan as a nation and fear that they will make the same mistakes as they did seventy years ago (Smith, 2017). What this means for the fate of a stable relationship between the two countries is that if Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party choose to 18 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 go through with their decision, this will only further plunge the two countries into a state of brinksmanship as well as mistrust.

A substantial breach of trust came between the nations when Japan's Defense Ministry drafted a plan to put the new F-35B planes on the Maritime Self Defense Force's helicopter carriers. What particularly bothered China about this is that these new helicopter carriers were going to be used near Japanese claimed islands (Shim, 2017). China is using this as justification for their necessity for a military buildup because according to the Chinese foreign ministry’s diplomatic spokesperson Hua Chunying, Japan taking this action is violating Article 9 since they are not supposed to possess aircraft carriers (Shim, 2017). Along with Japan operating an aircraft carrier, they have recently reactivated their old Amphibious Raid Deployment Brigade ARDB.

This was a unit that has not been in service since World War Two (“Abe’s push to change

Japan’s defense strategy,” n.d.). The purpose of this unit is to counter threats to Japanese islands located in the East China Sea that are under threat from China. China now sees this as a threat and are claiming that Japan is out of their constitutional limits by using such assets (“Abe’s push to change Japan’s defense strategy,” n.d.).

Japan and China have been feuding over territorial claims for years. A set of uninhabited islands known to Japan as the Senkakus and to China as the Diaoyu’s have been the setting of cold conflicts and shows of force for years. The main root of the issue is that China claims that they belong to them through historical claims and saying that Japan stole the islands from them during the First Sino-Japanese War. On the contrary, Japan states that the islands are in in the inherent territory. Japan also refutes and denounces Chinese historical claims over the islands and state that these islands never belonged to China or were ever part of their historic territory

(“The Senkaku Islands Dispute,” 2016). Tensions began significantly back in 2012 when the 19 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Japanese Government took over the Senkaku Islands from private owners. Since then, China has made multiple historical claims and have gone as far from sending fishing boats, Coast Guard and Naval ships, and even flying Jets in the airspace above the islands (Stashwick, 2017). China has been making large shows of force in order to reinforce their claims over the islands. The

Chinese military set up an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) where it is strategically located to cover the Senkaku islands (“The Senkaku Islands Dispute,” 2016). With China making all of these bold moves, it is imperative that Japan is able to not have limits on its military capabilities due to the enormous challenge that China presents.

A significant issue that Japan is facing with regarding China is that China has the military power and influence to encroach on the Japanese territory and do whatever they want. China has made it clear through their words to the international community and their actions about not recognizing Japanese claims concerning the Senkaku Island chain. The nation of China has purposely begun extracting resources such as fish and gas from the area around Japanese claimed territory near the Senkaku's. Also, when Japan does not want to cooperate with Chinese efforts into research and survey the area, China has sent a flotilla of missile destroyers to the area(“Japan's Vision For East Asia.pdf,” n.d.). Analyzing China’s action in the region of the

Senkaku’s is that the Chinese military knows that they can, in essence, bully the Japanese with little to no fear of reprisal from Japan or the United States in that matter. Also, Japan is inferior in their military power when compared to China, and China is exploiting this weakness in order to further their influence. This is one of the many reasons why Japan want to change their constitution to have a more capable military to defend themselves from the much more powerful militaries of the world. 20 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 With hostilities rising between the two countries, what does this mean for the economic relationship between the two countries? China and Japan have been significant commercial partners since the 1990s. Not only that, but Japan is China's third largest export destination, and

China is Japan’s number one export destination (Snow, 2018). Currently, this issue is one of the main drivers keeping the two countries from an all-out conflict. If these two countries lose each other as trading partners, it could likely cripple their economies to the extent in which going to war would cost more than it would even be worth (Snow, 2018). However, Chinese rhetoric about the Article 9 issue is stirring up resentment towards Japan from the Chinese people and government. Chinese media outlets are going as far as calling the process of repealing Article 9 as "war legislation," and they only plan to revive militarism and nationalism (Richter, 2016).

This boils down to the fact that the Chinese are fearful of a militarily stronger Japan because they will likely boost maritime patrols around the Senkakus and the cold conflict will not remain cold for much longer(Richter, 2016).

Japan and North Korea

The relationship between Japan and North Korea have always been poor due to two nations long history together. The problems between the two countries go all the way back to

Japanese aggression on the Korean Peninsula prior to World War Two. The atrocities committed in those days have led to a loathing of the Japanese by the North Korean people. The relations between the countries have never been amended throughout the past seventy years. This creates a deep-rooted issue for trying to resolve any problems in the future. However, throughout history, there is one significant difference between the capabilities of each country. One has access to a nuclear arsenal, and one does not. 21 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 In today’s contemporary international issues, North Korea has been at the forefront of many countries defense strategies due to the looming threat of nuclear strikes from the rogue state. Japan has more than enough reason to fear the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

(DPRK) due to their proximity to the nation. In late 2017, North Korea launched a Hwasong-12

Intercontinental Ballistic Missle over Hokkaido. Currently, Japan is very limited on what they can do in the case that a missile is launched. Under Article 9, the Self Defense Forces can only intercept missiles that are bound to land in their territory. The issue that this creates is the current missile system that North Korea is using has a range of approximately two thousand seven hundred miles (Jones, 2017). With such an extensive range, this missile system would never be used to hit such a close target such as Japan.

This test that North Korea endeavored on put Japan in a predicament due to the specifications of the missile test. The missile flew right above the threshold of Japanese airspace, and this allowed North Korea to gain some very strategic data. As mentioned previously, under

Article 9, Japan cannot intercept any missiles that are not due to hit their land directly. What

North Korea gained from this is that they possess the ability to launch rockets over the Japanese mainland and the Japanese missile defense systems will likely sit idle and will not intercept any missiles that are bound for other targets (Jones, 2017).

While Japan’s military action is limited due to Article 9, that has not stopped them from preparing for conflict with North Korea. Japan's Self Defense Forces have bolstered up their defense capabilities. Currently, the number of ground troops that Japan has is a little over one hundred fifty thousand. According to Tiglao, theoretically, if Japan were to militarize, that number would increase significantly (Tiglao, 2017). Also, Japan is expanding their number of air forces and even have a new stealth fighter, the X-2 Shinshin (Tiglao, 2017). As mentioned 22 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 previously, Japan is also “refitting” their helicopter carriers to have the capabilities to launch the

F-35B fighter Jets. These Jets have the Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) capabilities which will allow Japan to use them without having a traditional aircraft carrier which is Article 9 bans (Shim, 2017). This re-armament of Japan is in direct correlation to the threat that North

Korea is presenting.

Another facet that Japan faces is their bi-lateral defense agreement with the United States.

Concerning the situation with North Korea, the United States can appear to be Japan's greatest asset and most significant threat. This is because if the United States uses some military force against North Korea, Japan will likely retaliate against Japan (Bonji, 2017). The United States has many military bases sprawled throughout the Japanese mainland and surrounding territories.

In the case of a multinational military strike on North Korea, Japan, and the United States would use these bases as launching points for military operations on the Korean Peninsula. This gives

North Korea a great incentive to threaten Japan and put immense pressure on them to refuse the

United States to use the bases for military operations (Tosaki, 2017). North Korea also realizes that the alliance between the United States and Japan have allowed the power of the US military to extend into the East Asia region. What this means is that Japanese military strength is ultimately the same as the military power as the United States (Schlosser, n.d.). While Japan has the most powerful ally in the world, this relationship makes them a proxy-target and can now be perceived as more of a curse than a blessing. This feeds more and more into Abe's narrative of nationalism and having Japan be self-sufficient in a military sense (Schlosser, n.d.).

The goal of all of these threats to Japan is North Korea's way of making them less willing to comply with essential allies in the region. However, the missile launches and threats provide the Japanese government with more ammunition to rally public support to repeal Article 9 than 23 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 before. This now helps the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan to sway public opinion of the article. Prime Minister has characterized these missile tests as a new level of threat (Lee, n.d.).

Abe has made it clear that there is a substantial correlation between remilitarizing Japan and

North Korea. Other Japanese politicians are seeing this threat and are making similar claims.

Toru Hashimoto former governor of Osaka stated that today's threats are different than they were after the second world war. Having a military might have been unconstitutional then, but there is no doubt to Hashimoto that having a formal military is needed more than ever now (Rich, 2018).

Japan formalizing its military through repealing Article 9 will hold a lot of weight in the region. While many think it will only cause tensions with North Korea to boil over, many believe it will do the exact opposite and tame the rogue nation. Having Japan being able to play a more significant role in global affairs, will allow them to project more strength than ever before (Pesek

2017). Also, an armed Japan would let the country to have better defensive capabilities.

Allowing the state to invest in more military equipment such as better missile systems that can intercept North Korean ICBM’s no matter where they are, will likely make the rogue state have to re-evaluate their strategies for launching missiles (Pesek, 2017).

China and North Korea Recap

With countries such as China and North Korea having such large and powerful military capabilities compared to Japan, Article 9 is now becoming inferior. The threats are apparent not only to Japan but to the allies of Japan. It all boils down to Japan being able to defend itself and in today's modern world that is more of an inherent right than a luxury. Article 9 is one of the critical factors in this domestic and international debate regarding Japan. Many citizens are in fear of the threats that China and North Korea present, but yet do not want to take any action to protect themselves and would instead rely on the United States (Kfir, 2017). Having the United 24 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 States as an ally seems to be presenting more of an issue to Japan than a resolution. Abe wants

Japan to be entirely self-sufficient in a military sense and restore Japanese nationalism along with the ability to not get bullied by more powerful

Japan and the Rest of Asia

Japan and Russia

Japan and Russia have been engaged in a cold conflict over a chain of islands called the

Kuril Islands. These islands are located North of the island of Hokkaido and have been under the control of Russia since the end of World War II. While these islands have been in Russia's power, they have taken a similar strategy to China and have militarized and settled these islands.

Prime Minister Abe has tried for both Russia and Japan to come to some agreement over the

Kuril Islands. However, Putin is not planning on giving up any of this territory to Japan no matter how hard Abe tries (Miller, 2018). Russia has begun to deploy military aircraft to the

Kurils as well as anti-ship missile defense systems.

Along with this, Russia is also sending an army division to the disputed territories along with various other military systems (Gady, 2018). The issue that Japan is facing is what happens if the

United States security umbrella leaves? This leaves them in territory disputes with two of the world's largest superpowers, and their armed forces of roughly 250,000 would not be able to quarrel such threats.

Japan has begun looking into ways to bolster their defense while keeping Article 9 in mind. Recently, Japan has bought Aegis Ashore Missile Systems from the United States and placed them in the Northern Territories to have a chance of defense from threats like Russia

(Tajima, 2018). This move has aggravated Russia as they feel that Japan is in direct violation of 25 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 their constitution by deploying systems like this. This prompted a response from Japanese officials who claim that the missile systems are strategically explicitly placed for defense from

North Korean missile threats, but Russia is not convinced.

Japan has two significantly dominant superpowers claiming territories and not making any effort to come to an agreement over these territories. This puts Japan in a particular situation now with facing China to its South and Russia to its North. With a new presidential administration in America who is looking to focus on domestic issues rather than international disputes that they have no part of, Japan is in a compromising situation. Having a standing military without the limitations that Article 9 imposes, Japan would be in a better state to defend themselves if Russia saw America’s withdrawal as an opportunity.

Japan and South Korea

Japan and South Korea allies and have been since the end of World War Two.

Considering their proximity to one another and the fact that they both are under constant threat from North Korea, it would be thought that the South Koreans welcome the constitution change with open arms. This is a sensitive subject in South Korea because they too are split on how they feel about Japan taking this action. On the one hand, a remilitarized Japan would mean an even more substantial deterrent for North Korea and an increased sense of security in the region(Cho

& Shin, 2018).

Contrary to this, the most significant issue that South Korea has with Japan's repealing of

Article 9 is that there is deep-rooted animosity from the age of Japanese Imperialism. As a result,

South Korea does not trust Japan and feel as if Japan has never sincerely apologized for the atrocities committed during the era of aggression (Cho & Shin, 2018). South Korea is also at a 26 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 strategic crossroads due to the nature of the relationships they must maintain in the geostrategic region. For example, South Korea cannot focus too much on trying to appease the US and Japan because that will further enrage China and North Korea. The same goes the other way as they cannot focus on trying to appease China and North Korea because the US and Japan are likely to gain the wrong views from that. What South Korea is focusing on more is a tri-lateral agreement between Japan, China and themselves to create a balance of power (Cho & Shin, 2018).

One aspect that is promoting better synergy between the two countries is the looming threat of North Korea. The nuclear threat that is presented to both Japan and South Korea is significant due to the North Korean regime’s animosity towards both nations. The devastation that would ensue from an attack on these two countries would be devastating. There would be over one million fatalities and exponentially more casualties (“A Hypothetical Nuclear Attack on

Seoul and Tokyo,” 2017). Now with this apparent threat to both Japan and South Korea, these nations must work on putting past prejudices aside and focus on what danger lies in front of them. However, countries still lie at a standstill due to the differences of how each wants to quarrel the threat of North Korea. For example, Japan is looking towards a more militaristic deterrent towards North Korea while South Korea is looking for a more diplomatic approach

(Cho & Shin, 2018).

The differences in how each country wants to deal with North Korea is causing a lot of skepticism in South Korea on the issue of Japan repealing Article 9. South Korean thought is starting to think that if North Korea and Japan take any act of aggression is no longer restricted to just self-defense, the repercussions of Japan coming to the aid of the United States and South

Korea will likely bring in more prominent players to the North Korean side such as China and

Russia(Cho & Shin, 2018). The future for these two nations is unsure at this point due to the 27 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 constant disagreement about Japan repealing Article 9. The question that arises from this is how these two countries will agree with keeping the other national actors in the Asia Pacific in mind?

Japan and the United States

With the move to repeal Article 9, the effects it would have on the treaty between the

United States and Japan would significantly be focused on the military. What this means is that not all hope is lost between the two countries. The alliance between the two nations advocates for more than just a military alliance. The treaty has brought on initiatives such as better trade cooperation between the two countries along with facets that deal with collaboration for cleaner energy consumption technologies as well (“The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance,” 2014). This goes to show that the two nations are completely capable of still being able to cooperate if the decision to repeal Article 9 passes.

Bearing the thought relationship between the two nations and the future of this decision, an interesting facet is the plans for the cohesion of the two countries if Article 9 is repealed.

During a visit to the United States back in 2015, Abe and former President Obama discussed the guidelines if the motion passes. These revised guidelines will allow Japan to engage in collective self-defense and even go as far as to provide military assistance to the United States if necessary.

However, this would only be allowed if Japanese security was at risk as well (Richter, 2016).

This means that Japan could effectively join the United States in military campaigns around the world. This is what Article 9 specifically forbids while it is still in place.

Having the United States has such a presence in Japan provides both its advantages and disadvantages. From a Japanese standpoint, one of the most substantial drawbacks is that having the United States exercise so much control over Japan violates their sovereignty. A Significant 28 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 area of Japanese waters, land, and airspace is restricted due to the United States using these areas for military training. Japan and the United States have been close allies since the ending of

World War Two. As of today, they have a bilateral defense agreement in which the United States will come to Japan’s aid if they were ever to get attacked. This treaty is formally known as the

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation(“MOFA: Japan-U.S. Security Treaty,” 1954). What this treaty guarantees the right for the United States to keep military bases on Japan for defense from a formidable enemy force. This treaty provides Japan with a strong sense of security and the

United States with a strategic location in the Asia Pacific Region. However, Abe, the Liberal

Democratic Party, as well as the people who live near bases, want some more freedom from the presence of United States personnel. This adds to resentment from nationalistic political leaders because it just further destroys Japanese nationalism and they feel as if they were to have their own standing military, they could use these plots of land for revenue rather than defense training.

For example, Japan is limited in space due to its actual size as a country. They are only able to use roughly 15% of their land for agriculture, industry and residential. Japanese leaders feel as if they can get more if the United States was not using the other vast areas for training grounds

(Sebata, 2012).

However, many advantages come with having one of the most prominent superpowers in the world safeguarding your nation. With the United States in a security treaty with Japan, it can hold one of their biggest threats at bay. As mentioned before, China is trying to bolster their military power and influence all across the Eastern Pacific Ocean. In order for Japan to be able to counter this threat, logically they would stay in this security pact with the United States. Also, having the United States at their side militarily, this leaves Japan with the ability to have exponential economic growth while maintaining a minimal defense budget. According to the 29 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Japanese Defense Ministry, Japan's defense budget for 2018 was around forty-two billion dollars

(Defense Related Budget, 2018). Contrary, the United States Defense Budget was estimated approximately six hundred billion (Amadeo, 2018). This allows Japan to rely more heavily on the United States for financial support for defense.

Japan and Trump’s America First Policy

With a new presidential administration in America, it brings its own set of challenges for international relations with Japan. President Trump’s administration relies very heavy on an

“America First” principle. This principle as outlined in President Trump’s National Security strategy aims to “prioritizing the interests of US citizens as well as protecting US sovereignty as well” (National Security Strategy, 2017). Very shortly after President Trump began his first term, he signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

(TPP). He declared it as an end to the era of multi-national agreements and emphasized his new push for America First (Solís, 2017). This action taken by President Trump created a lot of uncertainty amongst the allies that were part of the TPP, particularly Japan.

It created controversy in the domains of how reliable the United States is going to be in terms of foreign and economic matters. Perhaps one of the most significant blows to Japan was that the TPP gave them more reassurance in terms of having the United States be a multi- dimensional resident power in the region (Solís, 2017). President Trump has also urged strongly on the fact that the United States Allies in the area do more to defend themselves. Trump also questioned the value and efficiency of forwarding deployed US forces in and around the Asia

Pacific Region (Nye, 2018). This is not going unnoticed in Japan either, as scholars and politicians are beginning to notice that Trump’s goal is to have America stop being the world’s police. According to Narushige Michisita, the director of security and international studies 30 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, Japan is striving towards internationalism and self-sufficiency altogether (Maresca, 2017). This is what President Trump wants for Japan and for America to start focusing more internally as well.

What does this mean for Japan’s Article 9 though? Prime Minister Abe and the Liberal

Democratic Party see America’s shift of focus as an opportunity for Japan. With China having the chance to be the next superpower to step into the vacuum left by America's withdrawal, Abe is starting to play President Trump’s game. (Rosenberger, n.d.). Trump wants Japan to be more assertive on an international level, and it is clear they cannot do that with these military limitations (Pietrzyk, 2016). Abe and his administration beginning to use this as more fuel to push their agenda of repealing Article 9 (“Why the Japanese prime minister is playing nice with

Trump | Opinion,” 2017). Using the logic that if the United States is no longer going to defend

Japan, they have no choice but to have more conventional armed forces. Fear from threats such as China and North Korea will only be bolstered by the fact that the United States is no longer their security net. Abe is strategically using this to secure a historic change in Japanese society

(“Why the Japanese prime minister is playing nice with Trump | Opinion,” 2017). However, with

Japan still succumbed by Article 9, it is likely that they will continue to need the United States as their protector with them facing current threats of China and North Korea.

Japan is worrying about the United States leaving is because Trump is serious about not coming to the military aid of other countries in the past. For example, President Trump has made it clear to the Baltic States that the United States would not come to their aid in the case they were attacked by Russia (CNBC, 2016). This is almost exactly the case in Japan where a smaller country is under threat by a superior superpower, and the United States is reluctant to come to their defense because of the new presidential policies. In the case of Japan, Trump is supportive 31 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 of them repealing Article 9 and supporting themselves militarily. President Trump is supporting this by allowing more and more joint training exercises with the Japanese Self Defense Forces and the United States Military (Knodell, 2017). The America Frist policy is a very crucial event in the repealing of Article 9. Without the security umbrella that the United States has provided for decades, Japan must take the initiative to begin providing their own defense. However, with

Article 9 still in place, it will be challenging for Japan to be able to defend themselves against the present threats in the region with such little resources concerning their defense forces.

Article 9’s Effect on American Foreign Policy

Japan as well as the entire Asia Pacific region has been a critical point in the United

States foreign policy and national security strategy for decades. With America starting to focus less on Japanese security and Japan starting to take on the challenge themselves, the question that arises is about the future of America's foreign policy in the region. The two countries plan to work together and continue to maintain a strong security presence in the area. The take away is, this time around Japan will be more self-sufficient in regards to their own security (Pietrzyk,

2016). America now has the task of maintaining good relations with all states in that area. For example, China and South Korea need to be kept in the scope of America to avoid suspicion.

Pietrzyk mentions that it needs to be a priority for all sides to mend bilateral relations in order to minimize tension and distrust (Pietrzyk, 2016).

The United States does not plan to entirely forget about Japan in regard to the American scope of foreign policy. While the United States is reluctant to defend Japan, they are planning to increase weapons trading with the nation exponentially. This coincides well with both Abe and

President Trump due to each one's view of the situation. In Abe's case, the more weapons and overall military capability Japan has, the more deterrent potential they have if Article 9 is 32 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 repealed. In the United States situation, they get to increase their trade and still be an ally to

Japan but in a more economic sense (Richter, 2016). This can be seen as a pyrrhic victory for

America because they will achieve an immense financial gain from Japan repealing Article 9.

However, many neighboring countries condemn the repealing of Article 9 and think that it is likely that it will drag Japan into some conflict (Richter, 2016). All the while America claims they will not involve themselves in any conflict but neglect to realize the number of vested

American interests and assets in the Asia Pacific Region. The United States is going to have to protect those interests which will lead them to be involved in a conflict one way or another

(Richter, 2016).

America must evaluate their current relations and not wholly neglect the region due to how much of an active player they are in Asia. The United States is an integral part of Japanese politics and always has been. With the scope of American foreign policy shifting away from

Japan, how they will adapt to becoming more self-sufficient in a military manner is a task that

Article 9 can either solve or make worse. America is facing rapid changes domestically and other nations are starting to take notice to this. The Asia Pacific Region is bound to see significant changes with the United States having less of an influence and Japan possibly having a formalized military.

The Future for Japan

With the current security climate that Japan is facing along with political parties making

Article 9 a focal point in their agendas, the future of Japan is starting to be taken into account by both political leaders and citizens. Either Japan will once again be able to have a regular standing military with little restrictions, or they will stay with the current constitution and have to rely on other nations for their security. This brings up a multitude of issues and situations of uncertainty 33 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 such as what will America do, and how will other aggressor nations such as China and North

Korea retaliate if they do or do not go through with repealing Article 9. Also, how what type of effect is this going to have on Japanese society regarding its citizens and political leaders? Since the time frame for the article to get repealed is in less than two years, the changes are going to have a significant impact on the society and international relations of Japan. Also, what must be factored into the future of Japan regarding Article 9 is how the international community will perceive this action by Japan. This is likely to be a very significant change in Japan due to how much repealing Article 9 is going to change the status quo. There are many directions that

Article 9 can go, the changes will either have a positive effect on Japan and its people or drive the country down a road it cannot easily recover from.

Article 9 and its changes in Japanese Society

Japanese political leaders have their sights set on having these revisions to the constitution in place by 2020 and the beginning of the Summer Olympics in Tokyo. If Article 9 is removed from the Japanese constitution or any changes are implemented, what will this look like for Japan's future? The plan that Prime minister Abe and his cabinet have devised is indeed in full support of their nationalist rhetoric. Japan plans to heighten the assistance of American forces operating in defense of Japan, provide logistical support for allied nations who are engaged in activities that are in favor of Japanese security and support the peace of the international community. Also, Japan plans for their troops to be able to operate in foreign theatres of war, only if in support of allied nations (Pollack, 2014). This brings about many worries for neighboring countries such as China, South Korea, and even the United States. This is due to there being little transparency about what the Japanese initiative is with making such a bold move as revising the pacifist clause in the constitution is (Pollack, 2014). Abe spoke to the 34 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Japan Times to refute this lack of transparency by making statements regarding the current security situation in the Asia Pacific region (“Abe repeats goal of revising Article 9 in speech to

SDF’s top brass,” 2018).

This current security situation is that of issues with a nuclear regime in North Korea, An aggressive China and cold territorial disputes with Russia. One key aspect of all three of these current threats to Japan is the fact that they all possess nuclear capabilities while Japan does not.

This is an essential facet in Abe's plan on repealing Article 9. Currently, the pushback that Abe and his administration is facing is all about plunging Japan into multiple wars if Article 9 gets repealed. The Liberal Democratic Party plans to get rid of the renunciation of war part and replace it with a renunciation of Japan becoming nuclear (Samuels, 2004). This gives Japan an edge because Abe wants to dispose of a bill that was imposed on Japan by the United States over seventy years ago. Not going nuclear will allow them to have more legitimacy in their claims of right to inherent self-defense and keep them from the perception of being belligerents (Samuels,

2004).

Japanese society is steeped with honor and a very humble sense of pride and has been since the dawn of the nation. As a result, citizens and politicians view Article 9 as a humiliating reminder of losing the war and their disarmament as a nation (Maki, 1990). This is one of the most powerful driving forces in getting the constitution revised. Not only will it make Japan more secure in their current climate, but it will bring back a sense of pride to the nation.

However, many of the people who have this train of thought are the younger generation who did not have to live in the wake of the Second World War. The generation gap presents two different ways of thinking. 35 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 On the one hand there is the older generation who experienced the war or the repercussions of its wake, and on the other side, there is the younger generation who grew up in a new Japan and were provided the comforts that the past generations never had (Maki, 1990). The argument and animosity between the two ages over the Article 9 debate are very apparent, but what people neglect to realize, is that the younger generation is the future of Japan. According to

Maki as the years pass, the fatal attraction of war will most likely appeal to the younger generations and Article 9 and pacifism is likely to disappear from Japan’s national agenda (Maki,

1990). The future of Japanese society is looking to favor the repealing of Article 9 and a more militaristic and nationalistic Japan.

While the future of Japan is willing for the constitution to change, the current population is not looking forward to such a societal shift. As of May 2018, many citizens have had a change of mind on the debate on Article 9. Opposition for the referendum went from forty-eight percent in 2017 and had risen to fifty-eight percent as of 2018 (The Asahi Shimbun, 2018). The debate on Article 9 is constantly fluctuating on approval and opposition rates. In January of 2018, the opposition rate was up at fifty-four percent (Kyodo News, 2018). The current trend seems as if the longer that the Liberal Democratic Party waits to repeal Article 9, the more people are starting to oppose the referendum. A lot of the public opinion think that there is no need for

Japan to have a standing military due to it being such an advanced nation (Tau, 2018).

While Japan is an advanced nation, there seems to be a disconnect between what the

Japanese government wants for its people in contrast to what the people want for themselves.

The government sees that new threats have emerged, and the United States is continually putting pressure on them to begin to support themselves more from a military standpoint. The people of

Japan are still holding on to sentiment from the aftermath of World War Two (Tau, 2018). This 36 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 brings the question of how Prime Minister Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party garner more public support with the window to pass the bill closing quickly.

Moving Forward with Changing the Constitution

Going through with changing the constitution will be a difficult task considering the obstacles that the Japanese government and the Abe administration currently faces. Even though

Article 9 is in place, Japan still has a goal of building up a strong defensive force (Haley, 2017).

This, of course, brings a lot of discontent from other neighboring nations who see any military build-up in Japan as an act of the country going backward ("Abe's Win and Japan's

Constitutional Debate," 2017). Nations like South Korea, China, North Korea, and other nations in the Asia Pacific region see any attempt to revamp Article 9 as a Japan opening the door to expansionism (“Abe’s Win and Japan’s Constitutional Debate,” 2017). Prime Minister Abe must work diligently and strategically in order to change the way the international community views the Article 9 debate. What the most significant pushback from other nations is all condensed to is fears from what happened in World War Two.

Another threat to the success of going through with Article 9 is Japanese policymakers.

There is a disconnect within microcosms of government where policymakers are denying all attempts to repeal Article 9. The issues with this stem from the fact that certain politicians are aware of the current geopolitical climate and refuse to support the change (Hughes, 2017). Also, the disconnect between the policymakers and other governmental figures is what is delaying the process further. A majority of the policy makers keep with a hope that the United States will maintain their presence in and around the Japanese territory (Hughes, 2017). LDP politicians such as Abe and Yoshida are starting to update the National Security Strategy (NSS) of Japan to include the "shift in views." In essence, the new NSS is outlining current threats to Japan such as 37 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 the rise of Chinese military aggression as well as the grave nuclear threat from North Korea

(Hughes, 2017).

The Liberal Democratic Party and its leaders are pushing hard to change the views of not only other Japanese politicians but their international neighbors. The divide they face is that of past animosity held for war crimes committed during the twentieth century. The end goal of

Article 9 is to provide Japan with its inherent right to self-defense from aggressors in the region.

The situation in the Asia Pacific region is facing a change that it has not experienced in decades.

It is imperative for the Abe administration as well as the future of Japan to hastily make a choice concerning Article 9. However, the decision that Abe and the LDP made to bring repealing

Article 9 to the ballot has successfully opened up a door for the future of Japanese collective self-defense. The new security climate in the Asia Pacific is likely to determine the outcome of

Japan's fate of having a formalized standing military along with having the ability to be a more active player in global conflicts (Hughes, 2017).

Conclusion

With the evidence provided, the question of what the geopolitical climate will look like in the Asia Pacific region if Japan repeals Article 9 stands that there will be some division and disagreement. The divide does not only affect the international relations of Japan, but the domestic realm will also suffer. The populous in Japan are divided on whether or not they can move on from a humiliating loss from World War Two or the consequences of the crimes committed by the Japanese during the time frame of the war. However, in order for any progress, the past must not be forgotten but used as a lesson for success in the future. 38 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 The people of Japan must realize how significantly different the world around them is today rather than seventy years ago. With this being said, the term pacifism is beginning to be misconstrued regarding the Japanese constitution. This creates another divide between the people and the state. To the people, pacifism is peace all around and no type of military capabilities.

However, it is seen that the government has a different definition due to them having a Self

Defense Force and continuously building that force up. In order to bridge the gap, the people of

Japan must come to a consensus on what they want for their nation. This way there is no confusion on what the country is standing for concerning defense and military capabilities.

Mending the split between the people means that there needs to be an end goal for Abe and the

Liberal Democratic Party on what they hope to achieve with repealing Article 9. The more transparency that the administration has with the people, the more trust will go into supporting the repealing of the article.

Not only will transparency clear up confusion and distrust with the people, but for other nations who perceive this motion as a threat. Japan had a very hostile reputation during and after the war and committed many heinous war crimes within their neighboring countries. States such as South Korea who are allies with Japan see repealing Article 9 as a threat because of animosity for the crimes committed during World War Two. Unveiling the full intentions of repealing

Article 9 without compromising national security is likely to benefit Japan exponentially and make the neighbors more willing to trust them as well as support the decision.

Japan necessity for a formalized standing military needs to be understood especially with the current state of tension happening in the Asia-Pacific region. Article 9 places a lot of restrictions on what the Japanese military can do from an operational standpoint. Territorial disputes such as those in the Senkakus and the Kuril island chains is a reason for Japan to be able 39 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 to protect themselves from more substantial threats like China and Russia. However, the issue that this presents is that China and Russia are so used to pushing Japan around and knowing that the only way for Japan to deal with them is through diplomatic processes. If Japan can react in a more military aspect, this can likely make the cold tensions that are happening in the area become hot and lead these nations into a costly conflict. It is apparent that China and Russia are ready to defend these disputed areas due to the massive military buildup in and around the territories that Japan lays claim. With the three nations so prepared to fight for either what they want or what they have, it is apparent ton why China and Russia view Japan as a viable threat if they repeal Article 9.

This also leads down the road of bringing allies into a conflict if it ever becomes hot in the Asia Pacific region. Focusing specifically on those allies with China, if the two countries ever got into any type of armed conflict, the rogue regime of North Korea will likely come to the aid of China and attack Japan as well. Tensions between Japan and North Korea are already very high and with Kim Jong Un making threats such as wanting to “sink Japan”, there is little doubt that they would not pass an opportunity to engage Japan. Regarding North Korea, Japan's views are that having a formalized military will be a deterrent to North Korea. Also, they would have less restriction on the rules of engagement with North Korea launching missiles over their territory. However, like that of China and Russia, North Korea also is taunting Japan because they know that they cannot do anything because of the restrictions put in place by Article 9.

Repealing Article 9 is likely to be perceived as a threat to North Korea and tensions may increase significantly than ever before.

The case of the alliance between Japan and the United States is a crucial factor in the reasoning behind Article 9. North Korea is aware that the United States is of immense influence 40 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 in the area and is most likely a key factor in them not going any further than missile tests.

However, North Korea loathes America and wants them out of the region because they view the

United States as a threat to their way of life. This creates an essential focal point since the United

States is beginning to pull away focus from the Asia-Pacific region. With less American presence, the North Korean regime is likely to taunt Japan more frequently, and if Japan can respond more effectively, this can likely lead the two nations to a very bloody and costly conflict.

With the new administration in the United States and the focus shifting to domestic issues rather than international affairs, Japan is using this as fuel to garner support for the referendum.

This can either be a downfall or the success of Japan’s future. The situation with the United

States and Japan is that the Trump Administration wants Japan to focus on defending themselves in a more physical sense. What this means is they take the brunt of providing the personnel and equipment on their own. The United States will not abandon Japan altogether; they want to provide more logistical and trade support rather than actual troops. President Trump has already begun making many deals with the Japanese Defense ministry for military equipment and hardware. The critical fact to remember is that the United States is becoming less likely to come to Japan’s aid if tensions ever to get to the point of armed conflict. The Trump Administration has made it clear that the United States will not be the world’s police anymore. This means that if Japan ever does engage in any armed conflict, especially with a state such as China, they will have to fight that conflict on their own and with other allies that exclude the United States. This leaves the Japanese with an outdated US-Japan Security Alliance that was put into effect under

SCAP in the 1950s. This presents the argument that if America can move on from obsolete treaties and amend their constitution, why is Japan an exception? 41 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Not only does America realize the changing in times in the Asia-Pacific region, but all the other superpowers also do as well. China is seizing the opportunity and interests in the area without much opposition or regulations. Japan is striving to take the initiative and exercise its right to inherent self-defense. The future of the nation is at risk due to the geopolitical climate of in the Asia-Pacific. This leads to the future for Japanese society and the role they play in the future of the nation. With such a large age gap in Japanese society, many people are on one side of the argument about Article 9. Either they are in support in some shape or form, or they do not want it at all. This split in generations is that the people who are mainly for repealing Article 9 are younger and want to live in a more independent nationalistic Japan. On the other side of the spectrum, there is the older population who still live in the shadow of World War Two. When the referendum comes to the people to vote, this will likely be the age groups who determine what the outcome of Article 9 will be. Many citizens fear that this will lead Japan down a road of destruction and take them backward rather than forward.

Overall, it may be said that Japan is ultimately responsible for their self-defense and preservation of their society. However, with the reputation they have as a nation due to their past actions, it is likely that many other states in the area will perceive them wanting a formalized military as a threat. The decision will possibly close more doors to the nation rather than opening them up. With the current state of the aggressiveness and militarization in the Asia-Pacific region, Japan repealing Article 9 is more of a strategic downfall rather than a success. Japan and the United States are the only two nations who are for repealing Article 9. Nevertheless, Japan must bear in mind the neighboring countries who are likely to be impacted from this decision and their reactiveness to the motion must be taken into consideration. All in all, the stability of the 42 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 world relies on the Asia Pacific and Japan must realize that in today's world, cohesiveness between nations is what leads to overall success.

43 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Bibliography

29 Largest Armies In The World. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2018, from

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/29-largest-armies-in-the-world.html

1046-Artikeltext-2066-1-10-20160518 (1).pdf. (n.d.).

300914.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/300914.pdf

20041215.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2012/04/20041215.pdf

A Chinese View: The Risks of Changing Japan’s Peace Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26,

2018, from https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinese-view-risks-changing-japans-peace-constitution

A Hypothetical Nuclear Attack on Seoul and Tokyo: The Human Cost of War on the Korean

Peninsula | 38 North: Informed Analysis of North Korea. (2017, October 4). Retrieved

November 14, 2018, from https://www.38north.org/2017/10/mzagurek100417/

Abe repeats goal of revising Article 9 in speech to SDF’s top brass. (2018, September 3). The Japan

Times Online. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/09/03/national/politics-

diplomacy/abe-repeats-goal-revising-article-9-speech-sdfs-top-brass/

Abe’s push to change Japan’s defense strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2018, from

https://japantoday.com/category/politics/abe%E2%80%99s-push-to-change-

japan%E2%80%99s-defense-strategy

Abe’s Win and Japan’s Constitutional Debate. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2018, from

https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/abes-win-and-japans-constitutional-debate

Amadeo, K. (n.d.). Why Military Spending Is More Than You Think It Is. Retrieved November 8,

2018, from https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-

3306320 44 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty | Asia for Educators | Columbia University. (n.d.).

Retrieved October 4, 2018, from http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1950_usjapan.htm

Asia, C. is a C. expert in strategic developments in N., Melbourne, is based in T. H. holds a degree

from the U. of, Trade, worked at the A., & Beijing, I. C. in. (2017, October 5). Article 9 and

Japan’s missile defence dilemma | GRI. Retrieved October 29, 2018, from

https://globalriskinsights.com/2017/10/article-9-japan-missile-defence-dilemma/

Asia, I. (n.d.). Consider The THAAD: How An Armed Japan Could Help Tame North Korea.

Retrieved October 29, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/insideasia/2017/08/02/consider-

the-thaad-how-an-armed-japan-could-help-tame-north-korea/

China warns Japan against modifying helicopter carriers. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2018, from

https://www.upi.com/China-warns-Japan-against-modifying-helicopter-carriers/6631514302394/

Cho, E. J. R., & Shin, K. (2018). South Korean views on Japan’s constitutional reform under the Abe

government. The Pacific Review, 31(2), 256–266.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1397731

CNBC. (2016, July 21). Trump would not leap to defend Baltic states from Russian attack: NYT.

Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/trump-would-not-leap-

to-defend-baltic-states-from-russian-attack-nyt.html

Constitutional revision in Japan.pdf. (n.d.).

Diplomat, F.-S. G., The. (n.d.). Japan Asks Russia to Reduce Militarization of Disputed Kuril Islands.

Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/japan-asks-russia-to-

reduce-militarization-of-disputed-kuril-islands/

Diplomat, M. M. B., The. (n.d.). Japan’s Path to Constitutional Amendment. Retrieved September 21,

2018, from https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/japans-path-to-constitutional-amendment/ 45 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Diplomat, S. S., The. (n.d.). China and Japan Holding Maritime Talks to Prevent Maritime Clashes.

Retrieved October 26, 2018, from https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/china-and-japan-holding-

maritime-talks-to-prevent-maritime-clashes/

Ford, M. (2014, January 23). Will Japan Abandon Pacifism? Retrieved October 4, 2018, from

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/01/will-japan-abandon-pacifism/283298/

Giving Japan a military. (2017, June 13). Retrieved October 29, 2018, from

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/06/13/commentary/japan-commentary/giving-japan-

military/

Haley, J. O. (2017). ARTICLE 9 IN THE POST-SUNAKAWA WORLD: CONTINUITY AND

DETERRENCE WITHIN A TRANSFORMING GLOBAL CONTEXT, 26(1), 16. hermesauto. (2017, October 23). 5 things to know about Japan’s pacifist Constitution [Text].

Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/five-things-to-

know-about-japans-pacifist-constitution

Hughes, C. W. (2006). Why Japan Could Revise Its Constitution and What It Would Mean for

Japanese Security Policy. Orbis, 50(4), 725–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2006.07.011

Hughes, C. W. (2017). Japan’s Strategic Trajectory and Collective Self-Defense: Essential Continuity

or Radical Shift? The Journal of Japanese Studies, 43(1), 93–126.

https://doi.org/10.1353/jjs.2017.0005

Japan and Its Military. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2018, from

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/japan-and-its-military

Japan expanding missile defense with eye on China, Russia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2018,

from https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/Japan-expanding-missile-defense-

with-eye-on-China-Russia 46 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Japan: Japan Outlines Constitution Change Impact. (2014). Asia News Monitor.

Japan: Shinzo Abe wrestles with constitutional change. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2018, from

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/japan-shinzo-abe-wrestles-constitutional-change

Japanese sharply divided over revising Article 9 amid regional security threats, poll finds. (2017,

April 30). The Japan Times Online. Retrieved from

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/30/national/japanese-divided-revising-article-9-

amid-north-korea-threats-poll/

Japans_Vision_For_East_Asia.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Japans_Vision_For_East_Asia.pdf

Johnson, J. (2017, November 20). North Korea threatens to make Japan and U.S. bases ‘disappear.’

The Japan Times Online. Retrieved from

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/11/20/national/north-korea-threatens-make-japan-u-s-

bases-disappear/

Knodell, K. (n.d.). Don’t Let the U.S.-Japanese Alliance Get Out of Shape. Retrieved November 12,

2018, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/17/u-s-japan-military-exercise-rising-thunder/

Lee, A. (n.d.). Foreign Influences on Contemporary Japanese Remilitarization: The United States,

North Korea, and China, 81.

Maki, J. M. (1990). The Constitution of Japan: Pacifism, Popular Sovereignty, and Fundamental

Human Rights. Law and Contemporary Problems, 53(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191827

Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2018, from

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconstruction 47 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Miller, J. B. (n.d.). Russia Won’t Budge an Inch on Islands Japan Claims. Retrieved November 9,

2018, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/05/russia-wont-budge-an-inch-on-islands-japan-

claims/

MOFA: Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2018, from

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html

NEWS, K. (n.d.). Abe Cabinet support rate up, 54% against Constitution revision: poll. Retrieved

November 19, 2018, from https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/01/7a542d80cbf9-update1-

abe-cabinet-support-rate-up-54-against-constitution-revision-poll.html

NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

Nye, J. S. (2018, October 4). China, Japan, and Trump’s America | by Joseph S. Nye. Retrieved

November 8, 2018, from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/japanese-american-

alliance-remains-strong-by-joseph-s--nye-2018-10

Pietrzyk, O. (n.d.). THE NEW DEAL IN JAPAN – US RELATIONS? POSSIBLE IMPACT OF

JAPANESE CONSTITUTIONAL REINTERPRETATION ON SECURITY COOPERATION

BETWEEN THE STATES, 14.

Poll: 58% oppose constitutional revisions with Abe in charge：The Asahi Shimbun. (n.d.). Retrieved

November 19, 2018, from http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201805020051.html

Pollack, J. D. (2001, November 30). Japan’s Defense Policy Revision – Where is Japan Headed?

Retrieved November 16, 2018, from https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/japans-defense-policy-

revision-where-is-japan-headed/

Port, K. L. (2005). Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and the Rule of Law. Cardozo Journal of

International and Comparative Law, 13, 127–160. 48 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Potsdam Declaration | Definition, Terms, & Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2018, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration potsdam.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/potsdam.pdf

Revising Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution | RealClearDefense. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29,

2018, from

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/03/06/revising_article_9_of_the_japanese_constit

ution_110912.html

Reynolds, I., & Hirokawa, T. (2017). Abe Divides Japan With Plan to Change Pacifist Constitution.

Bloomberg Wire Service. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2009248655/?pq-

origsite=primo

Rich, M. (2018, August 7). Shinzo Abe Announces Plan to Revise Japan’s Pacifist Constitution. The

New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/world/asia/japan-

constitution-shinzo-abe-military.html

Richter, J. P. (2016). Japan’s “Reinterpretation” of Article 9: A Pyrrhic Victory for American Foreign

Policy? Iowa Law Review; Iowa City, 101(3), 1223–1262.

Richter, J. P. (n.d.). Japan’s “Reinterpretation” of Article 9: A Pyrrhic Victory for American Foreign

Policy? IOWA LAW REVIEW, 101, 41.

Rosenberger, L. (n.d.). Can the U.S.-Japan Alliance Survive Trump? Retrieved November 9, 2018,

from https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/09/can-the-u-s-japan-alliance-survive-trump/

Schlosser, A.-M. (n.d.). Japan – North Korea Relations, 93.

Sebata, T. (2012). Pros and cons for keeping United States Forces in Japan (USFJ), (13), 9.

Snow, R. A. (2018, January 14). How is Japan reacting to the rise of China? Retrieved October 29,

2018, from https://newinternational.net/2018/01/14/how-is-japan-reacting-to-the-rise-of-china/ 49 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 Solís, M. (2017, March 24). Trump withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Retrieved

November 8, 2018, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/03/24/trump-

withdrawing-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Tamkin, E. (n.d.). Japan Talks Tough on Senkaku Islands Dispute with China. Retrieved October 9,

2018, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/21/japan-talks-tough-on-senkaku-islands-dispute-

with-china/

Tau, B. (2018a, August 12). Abe’s Window of Time for Amending Japan’s Pacifist Constitution

Narrows. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/abes-window-of-

time-for-amending-japans-pacifist-constitution-narrows-1534075201

Tau, B. (2018b, August 13). World News: Window Closing On Abe’s Bid to Embrace Military. Wall

Street Journal, Eastern Edition; New York, N.Y., p. A.9.

Tens of thousands rally in Tokyo against Abe’s push to rewrite Article 9. (2017, November 3). The

Japan Times Online. Retrieved from

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/11/03/national/tens-thousands-rally-tokyo-abes-push-

rewrite-article-9/

THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN. (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2018, from

https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html

The Early War in the Pacific | Boundless US History. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2018, from

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/the-early-war-in-the-pacific/

The End of Japan’s Peace Clause? - AIIA. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2018, from

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/end-japans-peace-clause/

The Senkaku Islands Dispute. (2016, July 31). Retrieved October 26, 2018, from

https://intpolicydigest.org/2016/08/01/senkaku-islands-dispute/ 50 JAPAN REPEALING ARTICLE 9 The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2018, from

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-japan-security-alliance

Tosaki, H. (n.d.). The North Korean Nuclear Issue and Japan’s Deterrence Posture, 19.

US Military Bases in Japan | 23 US Bases | MilitaryBases.com. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2018,

from https://militarybases.com/overseas/japan/

When it comes to North Korea, what is Japan’s military role? (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2018,

from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/06/japan-military-role/835816001/

Why the Japanese prime minister is playing nice with Trump | Opinion. (2017, February 10).

Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://www.newsweek.com/abe-fortifies-united-states-

alliance-against-china-555007