LDP’s Shock Doctrine

Supposedly guessing Prime Minister’s expectation, Liberal Democratic Party proposed New Komeito an idea that was to permit Self-defense Force participating in international activities of exercising collective security measures. Recognizing collective security measures as further beyond restriction of the Constitution of Japan than introducing collective self-defense right, Komeito strongly opposed the proposal. It must be a strategy of LDP of making stakes unacceptably high.

Collective security measures are forced efforts of multiple nations to sanction a country, which is threatening international peace and security. It includes, for example, joining Operation Iraqi Freedom, in which United States sent troops in its conviction of War on Terrorism. Japan limitedly participated in the operation to fuel volunteer forces vessels in the middle of Indian Ocean, following requirement of the Constitution that prohibited use of force in foreign country.

LDP proposal was with a simple and actual reason. In case of contingency in Korean Peninsula, lawmakers in LDP predicted that Japan would send its force as an exercise of collective self-defense right. When the United Nations passes a resolution to approve military action there, Japanese troops theoretically has to retreat, because it cannot join that effort of collective security measure. If they actually wanted to exercise the right, they need to pave a way to remain the troops there. That was why they abruptly raised this issue.

For Komeito, the proposal was beyond something they could accept now. Even if its leadership had already determined to accept collective self-defense right, other lawmakers supported by Soka Gakkai, a religious group upholding pacifist principle, were firmly opposed the idea. Discussion between two leading parties might get into stalemate with the bold and coercive proposal.

It was obvious, however, that LDP was making sure to get support on collective self-defense from Komeito through bargaining with dismissing collective security measures later on. LDP leadership already indicated a possibility of backing off its proposal two days later.

What has to be noticed is that it is not whether collective self-defense or collective security measure, but whether the Japanese approve fundamental erosion of the Constitution. To enable exercise of collective self-defense right is not only making Japan a “ordinary” country, but bringing it back to pre-war state of it, namely under leadership of the Premier.