Replacing Abenomics

This guy seems to be convinced that he should rather speak a baseless story, disguising people with personal determination, than presenting accurate perspective with honesty. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced in a press conference on Thursday that he would create additional economic growth to the extent Japanese gross domestic products reaches ¥600 trillion. “Abenomics is stepping into the second stage,” declared Abe without successful conclusion of the first stage. After unilateral passage of new security legislation, he believes that the public will wear any color he likes.

Abe was trying to shift policy focus from national security to economics which his administration firstly tackled. One action he made was replacing “three arrows” for economic growth. While he raised positive monetary policy, bold fiscal policy and growth strategy with structural reform as initial three arrows, Abe referred to strong economy, support to raising kids and social security as new three arrows. In short, he was focusing on welfare policies to achieve a goal of his economic policy.

To reach that goal, he stressed importance of demographic policy. Abe proposed increasing birthrate from current 1.42 to 1.8 and maintenance of a hundred millions of Japanese population in fifty years later. To achieve that goal, he promised various policy measures including zero job loss with family nursery, society of life-long activeness, zero waiter for preschool entrance, free education for infancy or more houses with three generations. Without any actual plan or schedule for achieving them, Abe appealed his firm determination to the public.

His self-confidence stemmed from an obscure achievement of his economic policy. “We arrived at a situation in which we can say that we have gotten rid of deflation,” told Abe in his administration. However, growth of Japanese GDP has been driven not with Abenomics but international elements, such as hedging from confusion in Europe or unpredictable move of Chinese economy. Consumption is still low after raising sales tax last year. Nevertheless, Abe emphasized that he would raise the tax again two years later “as far as unusual event like Lehman Shock is not happening.”

Those biased attitude in policy is a product of failure in his first term. Abe stepped down as Prime Minister with policy deadlock, which had been ambiguous. He sought close relationship with China, while reinforcing Japan-U.S. alliance. He took on economic growth policy, while encouraging environmental protection. In this second term, he does not hesitate completely dropping one of two options. But, politics cannot be dealt with such a simple dichotomy. Unfortunately, the Japanese people have a leader who does not understand that complexity.

Looking at Different Direction

Japanese newspapers reported an agreement between Foreign Ministers of Japan and Russia to resume negotiation for peace treaty as early as next month. Considering the situation in which Russia is isolated from international community over intimidating policy against Ukraine, it is unlikely for Japan to have any progress in bilateral relation with Russia. Recognizing it or not, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe still believes in a story that he will be able to regain popularity, if he is successful in inviting Russian President Vladimir Putin within this year.

Japanese Foreign Minister, Fumio Kishida, and Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, agreed on holding vice-minister level meeting in Moscow on October 8^th to resume negotiation for peace treaty. They reconfirmed to accumulate diplomatic communication for Putin’s visit to Japan or top level meeting in opportunities of international conference.

However, they seemed to have different understanding on what “negotiation for peace treaty” meant. In the joint press conference after the meeting, Kishida insisted on that “negotiation” included Northern Territory. “I raised Northern Territory issue to tell our viewpoints on it,” told Kishida, “and we could share a notion that we would need to continue dialogue to make a solution acceptable for each other.” He also expressed frustration on unilateral speeches and actions of Russia, including assertion of ownership or visit by high-level governmental officers on Northern Territory.

Lavrov, showing sober face, clearly dropped Northern Territory issue from the agenda of peace treaty negotiation, saying “Northern Territory is not an object of our talk.” “We can only make a progress when Japan accepts historical reality after World War II including the Charter of United Nations,” told Lavrov. For Russia, post-war historical reality is that Northern Territory is territory of Russia.

To invitation for Putin’s visit to Japan, Lavrov set a condition. “Schedule should be determined by host country. If there is an actual proposal, we will consider it,” said Lavrov. Russia has been carefully watching current Japan’s efforts to reinforce alliance with United States. It is likely that Moscow will answer to the invitation, seeing how Japan-U.S. relation looks like.

But, U.S. attitude on Japan-Russia negotiation is also sober. “We don’t believe that it’s time for business as usual with Russia given their behavior in eastern Ukraine,” told Deputy Spokesperson with Department of State. For Japan, post-war reality has been that Northern Territory issue was supported by U.S. in a context of Cold War. Now, it seems to be different.

Frozen Abductees Negotiation

Negotiation between Japan and North Korea over Japanese abductees issue has been making no progress for a long time. While the people were having no interest on the issue, Asahi Shimbun released a report that North Korea had been keeping the line of no change in former official announcement. That indicated rigid attitude of North Korea rejecting compromise to Japan. For Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has been known as a hardliner against the North, gridlock of the negotiation may cause further loss of his popularity.

Both governments of Japan and North Korea agreed that the North would be starting over investigation on Japanese abductees in May last year. One month later, North Korea launched special committee for the investigation, pretending to be serious about implementing the agreement. With positive mood between two governments, there was a speculation in Japan that Abe would visit the North and bring some abductees back with him.

Those optimistic expectations did not last long. In mid-September last year, North Korea began to buy time in the negotiation. “The investigation as a whole requires one year and we are still on the initial stage,” announced the government. Getting close to one-year period, the North unilaterally postponed the deadline of investigation this July. There is no deadline for the investigation so far.

According to Asahi’s report, North Korea has not changed its conclusion that eight died and four had not entered the state among twelve registered abductees, on which the North promised detailed research. In the summit talk between former Prime Minister Jun-ichiro Koizumi and then North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in 2002, the North announced that five were alive and eight had been dead. There has been no change in the line that eight abductees, including symbolic figure Megumi Yokota, were dead already. Japanese government does not believe in that story.

On the other hand, the North required Japan ten billion yen for research of cemetery of deceased Japanese in Korean Peninsula around the end of World War II. Although the North has been offering return of ashes of victims to Japan, Japanese government has shown no interest in the offer, worrying about negative impact on abductees issue.

No progress in the negotiation indicates that hardlining policy of Abe administration has certain limitation. Law enforcement authority of Japanese government has been laying strict regulation on the North’s financial organization in Japan. It is obvious that strategy of stick and no carrot does not work for Japan-North Korea relationship. Abe should not have planted too much great expectation on Japanese public.

Frustrated Public Responds

Major national newspapers conducted poll survey on new security legislation on last weekend. They proved that most people thought legislative procedure in the Diet was insufficient or inappropriate. Although it has been likely that a newspaper supportive for current administration drew a conclusion favorable for the government, such a tendency did not appeared this time. It showed how Japanese people were not satisfied with handling of politics by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

To a question of Asahi Shimbun whether supportive or opposite to new security bills, 51% of responders expressed opposition to the bills, while 30% supported them. On unilateral decision of the leading parties, Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, to take votes on the bills, only 16% thought it was good, making clear contrast from 67% that realized that had not been good. More significantly, 75% answered that discussion in the Diet had not been completed, overwhelming the 12% who thought that discussion had been over. Supporting rate of Abe administration marked new low of 36%.

In the poll by Mainichi Shimbun, 57% answered that they would not positively evaluate new security legislation, while 33% showed positive attitude. “Discussion was incomplete” topped as a reason why they did not accept the legislation, followed by “because I oppose to the bills” and “the bills should have been revised.” 78% thought that explanation to the public was insufficient, making contrast with 13% of “it was sufficient.” Answerer who thought the bills were violating the Constitution of Japan amounted to 60%, increasing by 8 points from previous survey in July.

Surprisingly enough, the same tendency was seen in the poll by Yomiuri Shimbun, which had ordinarily been supportive to the policies of Abe administration. In the survey, 58% answered that they would not positively evaluate new security legislation, while 31% would support that. 82% thought that explanation of the government and the leading parties were not enough. Supporting rate of Abe administration dropped to 41%, losing 4 points from previous survey.

The results of polls by major newspapers indicated unpopularity of new security legislation that Abe firmly insisted that it was necessary for protecting life and property of Japanese people. However, what he really wanted to do with the legislation seemed not to be protecting interest of Japan, as long as explanation on efficiency of new security legislation was contradictory, but exercising of collective self-defense, which no former Prime Ministers could go beyond. The leading parties are serious about regaining popularity, looking to next election as soon as next summer. But, the damage of security legislation would be more profound than they calculate.

Only Thing Unnecessary

Again, what can Japanese Self-defense Force be doing with new security bills? They allow JSDF rescuing Japanese people in foreign land, self-defense against offender in United Nations peace-keeping operation or protecting ammunition of foreign troops, even though they could be done even without the bills. One single element in new security bills that was not necessary was exercising collective self-defense.

As one of new security legislation, revised Self-defense Force Law permitted JSDF to rescue Japanese citizens in foreign country, while it had been limiting the activity to transportation. Meanwhile, the revised law laid conditions on JSDF activities of rescuing, such as actual areal control of host government or consent of host government on JSDF activity. They are the measures not to let those activities realized as use of force in foreign country that is prohibited by the Constitution of Japan. This provision will not be applied to rescue Japanese abductees in North Korea, because government of North Korea will not agree with it.

For the grey-zone situation, in which possible enemy is yet using armed force, no legislation was made this time. The government and the leading parties agreed on recognition that the order for mobilization can be made with cabinet decision through telephone conference. Although the opposite parties submitted Grey-zone Situation Bill to determine joint operation between coast guard and self-defense force, the leading parties dismissed it.

For JSDF in U.N. peace-keeping operation, revised PKO Cooperation Law added permission of use of force to get through an operation. If JSDF members find other troops or non-government workers assaulted by an armed group, they can reach and help them. Although it is doubted as violating Article 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits using force in foreign country, the revision has nothing to do with collective self-defense as long as it matters with U.N. operation.

New law called Importantly Influential Situation Law expanded JSDF coverage for supporting other troops from around Japan to all around the world. But, “importantly influential situation” can be defined within the concept of individual self-defense as long as it is concerned to existence of Japan. Even how bureaucrats argue necessity of applying collective self-defense to the situation, it can be managed with existing legal framework of individual self-defense. It is not bureaucrats but the sovereign people who have power to interpret the Constitution.

Bureaucratic Maneuver

So, what the government of Japan can do with new security bills? With the security legislation, it has been said that Japanese Self-defense Force can protect the troops with another country or transport arms of foreign troops. But, if it is necessary for security of Japan, JSDF always needs to exercise those operations whether or not new legislation is passed. The problem is reluctance of bureaucrats, highly reluctant to make those efforts, saying “We don’t like to do that because we might be arrested when we do that.” Just do it, if it were indispensable for existence of Japan.

Participation in United Nations Peace-keeping Operation was one of the greatest changes for JSDF in the past. While the operation has been strictly limited to activities for non-military supports, someone in Japanese government started to say that one of the JSDF members who helped injured foreign troops and kill his enemy with fire arms in PKO would be arrested in accordance with Japanese law, because it did not determine whether such an activity would be tolerated or not.

Obviously, it must be self-protection to support other troops who are operating together. “No, even if he were not violating international law, he must be arrested with Japanese domestic law. That is why we don’t like to be involved in such an operation. If you want us to do that, change the law to be suitable for PKO” was what Japanese bureaucrats were complaining.

One answer of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was exercising collective self-defense. Bureaucrats, mainly in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have been expecting to make that happen. They falsely believed that Japan-U.S. relationship would be firmly reinforced by more integrated joint military operation with the concept of collective self-defense. It is likely, however, that United States will be disappointed with Japan’s inability in actual military operation, because JSDF is still regulated not to be involved in offensive activities in many ways. New security legislation does not guarantee sufficient support to U.S. in battlefields.

Bureaucrats do not have power to interpret laws. Their job is not requiring security legislation to make their jobs easier, but fulfilling responsibility according to demand of sovereign people. In spite of unprecedentedly persistent protest against new security bills, bureaucrats kept on pushing lawmakers to pass the bills. What they achieved was not only freer hand in military support to foreign troops, but a significant example that the Constitution could be reinterpreted by intensive and distorted understanding by bureaucrats.

The Diet PG-13

Congress is a showcase of democracy in every country. It isn’t in Japan anymore. The leading parties were delighted, saying that new security bills were passed in the House of Councillors early Saturday morning. But, it was a unilateral recognition with incomplete procedure in the Diet. Rule of law was ignored by lawmakers who were supposed to be obeying to laws. Kids should not learn anything from them.

The most ugly scene in the passage was taking votes on new security bills in Special Committee in the House of Councillors on Thursday. One condition of taking votes in a committee is to hold central and regional hearings and report the conclusions to the committee. Chairman Yoshitada Konoike, elected from Liberal Democratic Party, pushed the discussion forward without reporting about what kind of opinions he had heard from the witnesses.

When he tried to go straight to taking votes on the bills, the opposite parties submitted a move of discredit against Konoike. After dismissing the move with majority of LDP and Komeito, Konoike started taking votes on the bills without having final discussion over the bills, which were mandated for finalizing the discussion.

During he required standing of lawmakers who support the bills, about twenty LDP lawmakers, who were not committee members, surrounded Konoike to protect him from protest of the opposite members. Although he did not see how many members stood up for the vote, Konoike declares that the bills were passed with majority of aye. Lawmakers instantly became a mob, hitting, kicking or screaming each other, reminding the audience of wrestling of monkeys for a banana.

In the plenary session next day, the opposites began to ignore the rules. Although a move to limit one speech on new security bills within fifteen minutes was passed by majority of the leading parties, a lawmaker with Democratic Party of Japan, Tetsuro Fukuyama, kept on delivering his opposite opinion from the podium further beyond his own time. “Shut you guy’s mouths up” or “Listen to me with silence” was what he reiterated in his emotional speech to denounce unilateral procedure by LDP.

This monkey business has nothing good for child education. For kids who had been taught by their teacher to listen carefully to other’s opinion or obey to school laws, the final scene for passing new security bills in the Diet must look like violent fight by rogue bosses in the class. One would hope the children to learn nothing from these barbarians in the Diet.