Realism, Revisionism and Resentment

After having long summer recess, Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is taking on his own agenda. In the speeches of ordinary meeting inside and outside the government, he actively talks about his idea on national security, making direction of this country to the right. Although he appeals the necessity of national policy to be realistic in light of current situation surrounding Japan, his agenda tends to be unrealistic because of his insistence on revisionism and personal resentment. National security is not for a specific individual.

He emphasized the importance of realism in Japan’s national security in his speech to the high level officers of Self-defense Force. “We cannot close our eyes to consecutive challenges against our national interest and to the security situation around us getting harder,” said Abe. “I am going to rebuild national security policy facing reality,” he added.

In the background of his speech, there was skepticism of him against the argument that constitutional amendment, which he insisted on, was not necessary at this moment. Since he cannot defeat that argument, Abe keeps on saying that “This constitution is not realistic,” appealing to a version of common sense. “We must not add burdens to the personnel of Self-defense Force by spending time for unrealistic discussion,” he insisted in his speech to the officer.

His argument is unfortunately or intensively based on a serious misunderstanding that the world society is deeply frustrated with Japan’s negative contribution to international security. “Our nation needs not only to say a words of ‘international cooperation,’ but to positively contribute to peace and stability of the world,” Abe said in his advisers’ meeting for security legislature. Actually, Japan has been contributing to post-conflict efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan, not involved in actual battles.

He used “positive” not as antonym of “negative,” but “passive.” Positive contribution for him means that Japanese force is going to anywhere in the world for not only passively protecting Japan, but maintaining world order. Japan will join actual battles, if necessary. In this premise, constitutional interpretation that Japanese force is not allowed exercising the right of collective self-defense needs to be changed. It has to be said that “positive contribution” is a product of second thought for his agenda.

The main reason that he insists on this agenda is resentment against poorly retired former Prime Minister, Nobusuke Kishi, who sought positive interpretation of the Constitution of Japan. His supporters are, after all, the concierges of his family affairs.