Explanation to Former Colonies

Bringing the victory in the election last week, Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, clearly addressed in Manila, Philippine, his willingness in enhancing Japan’s military power on Saturday. In the press conference, he insisted to amend the Constitution of Japan with a view of maintaining peaceful principles. Still, it was a major contradiction for him to keep the pacifism of Japan, while declaring expanding budget for military procurement. The response of the Southeast Asian nations, which are occupied by militarized Japan in World War II.

The greatest point he made in the conference was that Japan would not be militarized again. “From the viewpoint of maintaining Japan’s security and contributing Japan-U.S. alliance and regional stability,” he told, “we are reviewing our security guideline, establishing our version of national security conference and deepening the discussion over reinterpretation of the constitution to allow the government to exercise collective self-defense right.” He also insisted on making no change in three principles of the constitution: respecting basic human rights, sovereignty on people, and pacifism.

But the talking point of the discussion over security issues is not so peaceful in Japan. With the justification of protecting national interest and sovereignty of Japan, the government is obtaining the ability of striking enemy’s land. Even how he explains it to be strictly defensive, the ability is attacking other country before Japan will be attacked. The Self-defense Force is establishing Marine Corps to regain forcefully occupied island in Japan’s territory. The reinterpretation of collective self-defense is to join the battle between U.S. and other country, which is against the alliance.

While stressing the importance of the relationship with China, Abe encouraged the effort of Southeast Asian countries to deal with China’s active promotion to the Pacific Ocean. The government of Japan promised to sponsor patrol ships to Philippine. In the meeting with the leaders of Singapore and Philippine, Abe tried to persuade that Japan’s military empowerment would be as same as the exercise of other ordinary countries.

There is no detailed report of the response of Abe’s counterparts. The point should be how does it will be. If those Asian countries regard Chinese action as aggressive, and Japan will not be a militarism again, they will support Abe’s explanation. If not, the action of Abe administration will simply be recognized as self-fulfillment of Japan. In general, Abe’s reluctance of regretting the excessive brutality of Japan’s military makes his agenda difficult to be understood in the region.