Nitobe, Shidehara, Shirasu and the Hollowing out of the Japanese Peace Constitution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
East Asia (2009) 26:285–304 DOI 10.1007/s12140-009-9093-0 Realpolitik Versus Principled Politics: Nitobe, Shidehara, Shirasu and the Hollowing out of the Japanese Peace Constitution Patrick Hein Received: 28 June 2009 /Accepted: 30 September 2009 / Published online: 21 October 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract It is argued that the current debate surrounding the revision of article 9 of the Japanese peace constitution has shifted from a debate on non-violent ideals and principles rooted in the pacifism of Shidehara, spiritual father of article 9, to a more pragmatic logic of military action and Realpolitik which lacks intellectual depth, foresight and historical awareness. The article questions the inherent logic that tries to give a purpose to the military and gain international reputation by reinterpreting article 9 indiscriminately. Since 2004, the overseas dispatch of SDF forces into the Iraq combat zone has split the nation more than ever and a national consensus on what article 9 should stand for is further threatened by Government attempts to extend the application of article 9 to military activities outside Japan under the banner of collective defense. Ahead of the 2009 general election for the Lower House opposition and ruling parties have apparently agreed that time has come to review the text of article 9 for the first time after the war based on the premises of Realpolitik. Article 9 in its current wording still represents a very cherished core principle to the nation as a whole despite the military buildup and despite the tacit acceptance of the SDF and of the right to limited self-defense. The current popular mood against collective self-defense, against the overseas deployment of SDF, against the unequitable US-Japan Security Treaty and against nuclear weapons- termed “negative pacifism”- differs from the voluntarist security policies in the election platforms of the LDP and DPJ. Ordinary citizens in and outside Japan have challenged the political elite by teaming up to preach the peaceful spirit of article 9 to the world. It is asserted that the intended revision of article 9 has caused lasting changes in civic political grass-root culture. Keywords Article 9 . Japan . Pacifist principles . Realpolitik . Revision P. Hein (*) Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] 286 East Asia (2009) 26:285–304 Introduction Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan has stirred controversy since the constitution went into effect in 1947. The provision can be interpreted as prohibiting Japan from using armed force even in self-defense, but over time Japan has developed a military force that has expanded in both strength and reach. This expansion has sparked intense debate about whether or not Japan is in violation of article 9. Studies of the nature of article 9 from the theoretical perspective of principled politics are less common than they ought to be, and there is still much to be learned about the dynamics that have led to the factual reinterpretation of article 9 over the last 50 years. It will be recaptured how much the political reality that has led to the factual revision of article 9 contrasts with the original principle and the constitutional ideal. To substantiate the idea that article 9 has been gradually revised to serve the end of political pragmatism, the study begins by analyzing the theoretical nature of principles meant to ideally underscore political action and retraces then recent developments towards revision and resistance against it. There have been serious attempts to revise article 9 formally, but no amendments have been made so far. For some time however the two largest political parties, the LDP and the DPJ have been intensifying their discussions on constitutional reform including article 9. Amendments will be submitted to the Diet by earliest in 2010 and, assuming consensus is reached, put to a national referendum. A summary conclusion will seek to assess how the intended changes might likely affect public opinion and how article 9 could help to enhance Japan’s overall image in the world. Theoretical Considerations Standard dictionaries define the word principle as a yardstick or standard especially of good, ethical behavior. A person of principle is commonly thought to be the one who remains faithful to his moral ideals whatever the changing circumstances and avoids expediency and compromise. Wellknown universal common political principles are justice, peace, equality, hope, dignity, sustainability and human rights. No one knows what it concretely means. Therefore principles are also called ideals and this encompasses that they will never be actually achievable otherwise they would not be ideals. The three basic principles of the Japanese constitution are popular sovereignty, the guarantee of fundamental human rights and pacifism as expressed in article 9. Not everything that looks like a principle is one: for example the current Japanese legislative educational aim of ‘love of the country’, is not a principle in a strict sense. By being an end in itself it is concrete and specific instead of being an unchievable, unattainable ideal; furthermore it serves the end of action or expediency, and does not comply with the political requirement of democratic plurality [1]. Other negative examples of misleading, constraining non-principles are ‘classless society’ (Marxism), ‘race purity’(Nazi ideology) or the concept of the pre- war Japanese ‘divine emperorship’, which put all the sovereignty in the hands of a theocratic ruler acting as commander in chief of the army and head priest of the nationalist state Shinto religion. According to Arendt any requirement of unity- which is the opposite to plurality-with regard to principles proves impossible except under the condition of tyranny or dictatorship. East Asia (2009) 26:285–304 287 Decline of Principles The ongoing debate on the meaning of the constitutional principle of war renunciation and peace brings out the real motivations of those on all sides of the debate. When Jiro Shirasu, a former top aid to Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, wrote his best selling book “Japan, a nation without principles” [16], he could not find a good enough English translation for the term ‘principle’ and just stuck to the katakana transcription reserved to foreign words and the book title read as ‘Purinshipuru no nai Nippon’. In it Shirasu critizes politicians in Japan for not being principled anymore. According to him Japanese politicians have been failing to explain to voters and the public what motivates their actions and decisions. The absence of principles in politics has been causing misunderstandings and frustrations when negotiating bilateral treaties or formulating national policies. Using article 9 as one example in his book he maintains that article 9 may be considered to be the “masterpiece” (Japanese original “akkan” ,[16], p. 226) of the new constitution, regardless – and this is the crucial point- whoever proposed it former Prime Minister Shidehara or General MacArthur. The principle he maintains is good in itself and that is what matters. The stance taken by the LDP after the war that the whole constitution was imposed on Japan against its will and therefore article 9 must be revised is according to Shirasu unprincipled because it is insincere to suggest something is bad simply because it was presumably imposed. He calls it arrogant not to rely on principles in politics and hide one’s true intentions. Shirasu was later made head of the government’s trade ministry and then played a key role in establishing the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and thus helped set the course for Japan’s postwar economic development. Shirasu has been recently lauded for his defiance to the Allies and MacArthur in particular in the Japanese media. His adherence to the peace principle of article 9 seems to have reportedly weakened when the rearmament issue caused a domestic debate within Japan. According to meeting records taken by Robert A. Fearey, an East Asian affairs specialist, who helped John Foster Dulles, then a special representative of President Harry S. Truman, to negotiate the Japanese Peace Treaty in the early 1950s, Shirasu is quoted to have agreed to an amendment of article 9: “Article 9 should and can without great difficulty be amended at an early date to permit rearmament” ([10], p. 204/205). In retrospect it may be questioned if he as a representative of the elite really shared the political intentions of the Allies at that time: that article 9 had to reflect nolens volens the will of the people if it were to survive not only in legal terms but also continue to exist as legitimate principle in the eyes of the entire Japanese nation. Shidehara’s Influence A more influential though less well known and popular politician embodying principled politics has been former prime minister Kijuro Shidehara, a radical pacifist who is considered to be the spiritual father of article 9 of the after war constitution of Japan. He strongly believed that the aim of political action was to inculcate in the hearts of the citizens a hatred of war and a love for peace which would make it impossible for Japan ever again to embark upon a course of armed 288 East Asia (2009) 26:285–304 aggression against Asia or other nations. Mac Arthur had threatened to submit the Allied draft directly to the Japanese people if the Diet would have refused to accept it. This shows how much the US had tapped into the popular mood of the nation as Whitney remembers: “I had every reason to believe that my gamble would pay off, that the Japanese committee members would not dare to let our statement of principles appear before the public as a draft that they opposed.” ([17], p 250) Despite the controversy that has been spurred about the origin of article 9 it seems safe to say that it was Shidehara himself who proposed the article to MacArthur in their bilateral meeting on 24 January 1946.