On Shinzo Abe’s Controversial Security Bill | Analysis and Perspective
Japan is one of the isolated yet most developed countries in the Asia-Pacific. At the end of WWII, Empire of Japan had surrendered after Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings. Thereafter, in 1947, Japan’s new constitution was established with the presence of American military base in Japan. The new constitution was based on peace and democracy as well as forbidding Japan to militarize, hence reduced military and defense spending enormously. The controversy on PM Shinzo Abe’s new security bill is crucial for Japan’s defense strategy now and in the future vis-à-vis rising China. Three issues I want to highlight here: Okinawa military base, Senkaku Islands, and military expenditures. For some Japanese lawmakers, this new security bill may seem out of tradition, but Abe and his supporters acknowledge the new geopolitical shift and transition in the global politics and security. This security-bill possibly allows Japan to have more confidence in their national security, maritime affairs, and less dependency on the American military.
First, in 1951, Security Alliance Treaty was signed by both Japan and the US which allowed American military presence in Okinawa. From 1951 to 2015, there have been protests by the Okinawan natives rallying against the aggravation of American forces on many cases including rape, drunk driving and illegal prostitution. On the other hand, was Japan protected? Yes. Although natives urged the Japanese government to act on removal of U.S. military base, security officials and policy makers sees this as a threat to the national security. As of early September 2015, Okinawa’s military base is planning to relocate to Henoko, however the governor and the people of Henoko are protesting against this proposal. The controversy is if Abe’s security bill passes, what effect does it have on the US-Japan security alliance system? Will the US military base be removed for good? Does Abe’s new bill assure Japan’s overall security? Nevertheless, all these questions need to be presented in PM Shinzo Abe’s security-bill.
Second, Japan and China has been disputing over Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. Disagreement remained intense throughout the summer of 2015. There has been a number of incidents where Japanese patrol vessels caught illegal Chinese fishing boats in the Senkaku territories. An incursion in the disputed waters can be a provoking factor for both sides. In July 2015, Japanese side has sent additional coast guards in Senkaku Islands to counter the assertion of China. Most likely, Shinzo Abe’s security bill will make ways to protect Senkaku Islands and any other oceanic issues in the Asia-Pacific.
Third and lastly, the Japanese military expenditure remained 1.0 since the early 2000’s whereas China’s risen from 2.0 to 2.1 in 2014. From a security perspective, the Japanese military has fallen behind while depending on the US-Japan’s security alliance system. As Chinese influence increases around the globe politically, economically, and militarily, Japan’s government couldn’t help but to reflect on one’s military capability. As the US is more involved with terrorism and the Middle East affairs, the US-Japan’s security alliance system may have loosened the buoyancy. Also, the constitution not allowing Japanese soldiers to go abroad is leaving Japan outside of international cooperation on contemporary global issues. For example: 3078 Chinese soldiers are working for the UN Peacekeeping mission, whereas Japan has only sent 272 soldiers. Nevertheless, PM Shinzo Abe’s new security bill is focused on renewing the 1947 Constitution which prohibited Japan from militarization and sending Japanese soldiers abroad, which will be changed if the bill is passed. As of September 20, 2015, only 31% were in favor of the new bill and 54% of disapproval.
If this new bill were to be passed, issues of American military base in Okinawa, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute, and the Japanese military expenditures will be affected one way or another, sooner or later. 1) While American military base will make efforts to either stay in Okinawa or relocate to Henoko, the Japanese government is not ready to fully remove the military base either. As a result, the Japanese government will have to somehow convince the natives to accept this reality. 2) The islands dispute has more chances of intensifying than being solved. As Japan sends more patrol vessels in the disputed territories, so will China. One bad judgment or miscommunication can provoke this dispute into a maritime conflict. 3) As Chinese military expenditures increases, the Japanese have more dependency on the US. The differences between Chinese and Japanese military expenditures are from $145,000,000,000 USD to $41,600,000,000 USD. The threat of having both China and Japan reaching for military dominance in the Asia-Pacific could result in an outbreak of East Asia’s overall political and security stability.
Source and related articles:
Source and related articles:
1. Japan’s Defense Budget FY 2015:http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/270414.pdf
2. Military Expenditures:http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
3. More patrol vessels in Senkaku Islands:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/07/01/national/japan-bolster-senkaku-area-ship-patrols/#.Vf9m2N9Vikp
4. Abe’s New Bill Poll:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-21/abe-s-public-approval-slumps-after-security-bills-polls-show
5. UN Peacekeeping Data:http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml
6. Global Military Power Data:http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=china&country2=japan&Submit=COMPARE
7. US Military base in Henoko: http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/revise-the-plan-to-build-the-u-s-marine-air-base-in-henoko-okinawa/
