"Japan's Abe Is the World's Best Leader"

[Russell]

Coligny, yep it seems to be a Chinese-favored book.

My point is that China will be increasingly assertive in its foreign policy.

Almost as assertive as the U.S.

But at the very least the U.S. has some resemblance of democracy.

[Yokohammer]

If a large majority of the Japanese population is against it, that is actually good (even though I do not agree with them on this particular point), because it exposes Abe for the ultra-right-wing extremist he is.

BTW, Hammer, I understand your exasperation, but don't you think the threat of China in the long term justifies this change of constitution? Hasn't Japan now finally become a "normal" country?

Russell, I'm no expert on defense, but there are just too many question marks. You do know that Japan is already allowed to defend its country and people if under attack, right? So in terms of self defense nothing really changes.

What really disturbs me is the fact that such a small group of men can force such an important constitutional change against such widespread opposition, in what is supposed to be a democracy. Whether the current bill is right or wrong, or half right, or whatever, it is terrifying to think that they can essentially do anything they want, as has just been so clearly demonstrated. Take the long view and think about what might happen in the future if this situation is allowed to continue. There are no checks and balances. There's no way to rein in a rogue government.

To focus on the specific bill at hand is to miss the point entirely.

So getting back to those question marks: Who really benefits, and why? Why the big rush?

Here's what I and a lot of people are thinking: Abe is not being honest about his motives (again). That's why he has failed to gain the understanding of the Japanese people. He is attempting to pull the wool over their eyes and they're just not that stupid. If you've been following the discussions in the diet you will have seen explanations changing on a daily basis and contradiction after contradiction. Even some outright lies. I'm not making this up, it has been a bullshit circus right from the beginning. Abe is glossing over the truth and offering very superficial explanations that simply don't fly when you try to fit all the pieces together. He's acting like the general population is stupid and just doesn't understand that what he is doing is right for the country, but has utterly failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The reason for that is simply that he cannot provide a coherent explanation because he's not providing the whole story.

If there really is a coherent explanation that will be satisfactory to the people of Japan it's just a matter of taking the time to lay out the whole story, every detail, in diet discussions and elsewhere. But there seems to be some sort of rush. He's in a big hurry for reasons that have not been made clear. Is it just ego? Does he simply want to be the PM who gets remembered in the history books for having changed the constitution? Or is it something more complex and possibly dangerous?

It may not be a simple issue, but there's no way it's so complex that a sufficiently large percentage of the population can't understand and provide the necessary support for a smooth change, if such a change is really necessary.

[Russell]

Hammer, thanks for your reply.

Yes, good points. I now understand that your worries go beyond the current bill, and frankly that makes sense.

The only explanation I could come up with in the lack of Abe's explanation for the current rush is that Abe was simply ordered by the U.S. to do something about the skewed defense obligations.

But yeah, it could be something more sinister...

[Samurai_Jerk]

The population is that stupid for putting these guys in power when it was obvious what they wanted to do.

[kurogane]

The population is that stupid for putting these guys in power when it was obvious what they wanted to do.

But Grandma, the 12 year olds cried, we never noticed what big teeth you have!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So we're clear, I abhor Abe and all his ilk almost as much as I abhor the childish histrionics we are seeing from Our Side in response. There have been sane voices in the media but mostly it's been like watching that fat emospastic kid have a full meltdown because he didn't get the piece of birthday cake he really wanted and that his Mommy promised him. Having said that, my disgust at My Side aside, if there is any lesson and an inspiration we can take away from this it is just how vibrant and healthy Japanese democracy truly is. For such a symbolically momentous if procedurally trivial watershed, the process worked and the participants respected it and worked within the system to achieve their goals or register their opposition. The vocal and articulate public demonstrations should inspire people everywhere, and should drive home a needed lesson: don't vote for the The Dark Side. The Sith, now fully emboldened by their recent magisterial election win decided that a full mandate is just that and went to work to implement it, while the Rebel Alliance, though weakened and disorganised, managed to rally and orchestrate an important symbolic protest in the face of overwhelming enemy superiority. As childish and peevish as many of the opposition delaying tactics were, they are a part of any working parliamentary system, and once they had dribbled their immotile load onto the crushed velvet of the Commons floor the ruling majority went ahead and did what they are supposed to do: pass the legislation they believe they were elected to pass. Rather then renting our wet red underpants in mawkish displays of peevish anger what we need to do now is organise and orchestrate the final defeat of the Death Star and the dethroning of the Sith rulers.

The real question now is how big a deal is this reasonably significant reinterpretation of a longstanding constitutional convention, will it stand up in court if challenged, and what, if anything, will the people finally figuring out what is signified by blood dripping fangs and hooked claws do about it at the next election? I am not happy, but I take heart knowing that this is not the end, and might not even be the beginning of the end, but that one lost battle does not mean a lost war. Ewoks, Arise!!!!!!!!!!! On to Berlin, Comrades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yokohammer]

The population is that stupid for putting these guys in power when it was obvious what they wanted to do.

Lazy, maybe, but not necessarily stupid.
If people had bothered to read the 2012 LDP manifesto there would have been no question.

The pdf can be downloaded here: http://jimin.ncss.nifty.com/pdf/seisaku_ichiban24.pdf

No need to read the whole thing. Pages 12 and 21 contain the relevant information regarding their intention to make collective self defense possible (page 12) and to revise the constitution (page 21).

I suspect that most people just don't bother to read these things. That doesn't mean they're stupid, just too trusting and/or apathetic. Looks like that will change a bit after this, which is a good thing.

And an addendum for Russell: on page 12 they also specify that they will expand the military and increase the military budget.

[Takechanpoo]

i too am worried about this decision not through referendum(it kinda reminds me of empire japan days but still it does not deny democracy itself).
but the main reason of those protesters to oppose is not that.
they just are emotional, short-sighted and allergic, definitely lacking reason and reality.
if it was through referendum, actually would be rejected. it needs fuckin 2/3!!
no room to linger any more. the decision of Abe and his surroundings is politically right.
i do appreciate it.

[Russell]

The population is that stupid for putting these guys in power when it was obvious what they wanted to do.

Lazy, maybe, but not necessarily stupid.
If people had bothered to read the 2012 LDP manifesto there would have been no question.

The pdf can be downloaded here: http://jimin.ncss.nifty.com/pdf/seisaku_ichiban24.pdf

No need to read the whole thing. Pages 12 and 21 contain the relevant information regarding their intention to make collective self defense possible (page 12) and to revise the constitution (page 21).

I suspect that most people just don't bother to read these things. That doesn't mean they're stupid, just too trusting and/or apathetic. Looks like that will change a bit after this, which is a good thing.

And an addendum for Russell: on page 12 they also specify that they will expand the military and increase the military budget.

Hammer, I am aware of the plans on defense spending. They are already doing that right now.

I am not a hawk, but I see the clear danger of an emerging China, as long as it is not democratic. Better defend oneself against that...

[Yokohammer]

Hammer, I am aware of the plans on defense spending. They are already doing that right now.

Russell, I only added that note for you because in a previous post you said:

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

[Russell]

Hammer, I am aware of the plans on defense spending. They are already doing that right now.

Russell, I only added that note for you because in a previous post you said:

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

Ah, you caught me in an inconsistency, kind of...

What can I say? Without a credible military agreement with the U.S., Japan would need to increase its defense budget even more.

[Yokohammer]

Hammer, I am aware of the plans on defense spending. They are already doing that right now.

Russell, I only added that note for you because in a previous post you said:

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

Ah, you caught me in an inconsistency, kind of...

What can I say? Without a credible military agreement with the U.S., Japan would need to increase its defense budget even more.

Ah ... so you meant an even higher military budget would be necessary if the U.S. weren't part of the defense lineup.
OK, I can go with that. But either way the budget goes up (it has been going up for the past three years), not down (as it had been doing before Abe became PM). And of course we pay for that with our taxes.

[Russell]

Hammer, I am aware of the plans on defense spending. They are already doing that right now.

Russell, I only added that note for you because in a previous post you said:

I'm not sure whether the collaboration with the US will increase the defense budget. I would rather argue the opposite: without the protection of the US, Japan would need to pay much more for its defense.

Ah, you caught me in an inconsistency, kind of...

What can I say? Without a credible military agreement with the U.S., Japan would need to increase its defense budget even more.

Ah ... so you meant an even higher military budget would be necessary if the U.S. weren't part of the defense lineup.
OK, I can go with that. But either way the budget goes up (it has been going up for the past three years), not down (as it had been doing before Abe became PM). And of course we pay for that with our taxes.

[Yokohammer]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with that graph.

Are you saying that because China is spending more and more on their military Japan should follow suit?

[Russell]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with that graph.

Are you saying that because China is spending more and more on their military Japan should follow suit?

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer:

China is extending its military and its ambitions. Its behavior in the (not-so-)South-China sea towards Vietnam and the Philippines has been like that of a bully. Add to that a China leadership that is extremely narrow-minded and not open to new democratic ideas, as well as a population that is pretty much brainwashed and easily mobbed up by appealing to their inferiority complex caused by colonial occupations, and you've got a recipe for future war.

Japan has basically two choices: 1. continuing in the way it has been going for the last 70 years and run the risk that the U.S. is unwilling to back it up in a future military conflict, with the distinct possibility that Japan will have to take it up the ass from China, or 2. make sure it has sufficient military alliances and hardware in place to make it look strong enough so that a military conflict can be avoided.

I think the second option is cheaper and safer.

[Yokohammer]

The issues keep getting confused. Going around in circles. This is what was happening in the diet.

We all get that China is being an asshole, and building up its military. We can see that.

Japan is already allowed to defend itself against any sort of attack, from China or anyone else. To that end it can equip and train its military as it likes and strengthen alliances as necessary. No problem, and no constitutional change required.

The constitutional change allows Japan to defend and back up other countries. It is probably more accurate to say that the constitutional change obliges Japan to defend and support other countries, particularly the U.S. The constitutional change is not directly for Japan's own defense. The U.S. is not at war with China (yet), but it is involved in numerous other conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. So in addition to gearing up to defend itself against aggression from China, Japan will likely end up sending troops and resources to conflicts in the Middle East, or anywhere else the U.S. or a U.S. (and therefore Japan) ally needs military help. Japan may very well end up being involved in the "war on terror," and therefore in the military operations against ISIS and the Taliban and Boko Haram, etc, etc. etc. ... and is therefore likely to become a terror target.

All of this is going to involve a helluva lot more military resources, and ongoing military resources, than would be required to simply send a "don't even think about it" message to China.

There are multiple, simultaneous issues going on here, and it is essential to keep them sorted out otherwise confusion will ensue. Witness the mess in the diet, where the issues are deliberately being confused.

[Russell]

The issues keep getting confused. Going around in circles. This is what was happening in the diet.

We all get that China is being an asshole, and building up its military. We can see that.

Japan is already allowed to defend itself against any sort of attack, from China or anyone else. To that end it can equip and train its military as it likes and strengthen alliances as necessary. No problem, and no constitutional change required.

The constitutional change allows Japan to defend and back up other countries. It is probably more accurate to say that the constitutional change obliges Japan to defend and support other countries, particularly the U.S. The constitutional change is not directly for Japan's own defense. The U.S. is not at war with China (yet), but it is involved in numerous other conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. So in addition to gearing up to defend itself against aggression from China, Japan will likely end up sending troops and resources to conflicts in the Middle East, or anywhere else the U.S. or a U.S. (and therefore Japan) ally needs military help. Japan may very well end up being involved in the "war on terror," and therefore in the military operations against ISIS and the Taliban and Boko Haram, etc, etc. etc. ... and is therefore likely to become a terror target.

All of this is going to involve a helluva lot more military resources, and ongoing military resources, than would be required to simply send a "don't even think about it" message to China.

There are multiple, simultaneous issues going on here, and it is essential to keep them sorted out otherwise confusion will ensue. Witness the mess in the diet, where the issues are deliberately being confused.

Hammer, I understand the above issues, and am not confused at all.

Under the previous laws, Japan would be unable to defend or back up U.S. forces that were being attacked while they would be defending Japan. That is simply unacceptable.

I recognize that the new situation may also oblige Japan to fight in other U.S. conflicts. I think this is a similar problem with NATO. European countries were obliged to join the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq because of these ties. (Actually, you did notice that the Japanese army has also been in Iraq, but they had to be defended by other country's armies, because its soldiers could not carry weapons?). If a reasonable government is in office in the U.S. then there is no problem with Europe-U.S. military ties, but with the Bush-Cheney administration it was a disaster. So, if Putin was not such an asshole, it would be good if Europe strengthened its military cooperation with each other and left the NATO altogether. Europe, however, is big enough to stand on its own, if only they learned to work together.

Japan, being much smaller, needs the U.S. for a credible defense. And here it works two ways. The U.S. can then just as well expect Japan to do its part, even if that means that Japan will be involved in conflicts that are not directly related to its own defense. They may make enemies in the Middle East because of that, but ISIS already is considering Japan an enemy, so there is not too much difference in that.

With regard to terrorism, I am not too concerned about that. The number of victims due terror is actually very small, certainly if you compare it with traffic deaths.
[cynic mode on] And Japan is already doing all it can to keep foreign terrorists out, witness the banners I see when I have to pass immigration at Kansai Airport [cynic mode off]

So, I think Japan should grow up. If its population really is against the new situation, they can vote a different government in office in the next election, and reverse this constitutional change. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

[Yokohammer]

Under the previous laws, Japan would be unable to defend or back up U.S. forces that were being attacked while they would be defending Japan. That is simply unacceptable.

I think you have this wrong.

According to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan ...

Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9).

Underline added by me. The quote is from Wikipedia (hey, it was easy to find).

Without the constitutional revision Japan is allowed to assist (defend) the U.S. when it is defending Japan, but is not allowed to defend the U.S. in other conflicts.

[Russell]

Under the previous laws, Japan would be unable to defend or back up U.S. forces that were being attacked while they would be defending Japan. That is simply unacceptable.

I think you have this wrong.

According to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan ...

Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9).

Without the constitutional revision Japan is allowed to assist (defend) the U.S. when it is defending Japan, but is not allowed to defend the U.S. in other conflicts.

Do you have a link to that information? Edit: OK, I got the Wikipedia link.

My understanding is that Japan cannot even defend U.S. troupes that are engaged in the defense of Japan, but my knowledge on this is based on what I read in the media.

I (or said media) could be wrong on that, but still I think it is not unreasonable that any defense treaty between countries has mutual obligations to defend each other.

Edit:
Hammer, I have been looking into the source, but it did not make matters clearer. The previous treaty also extended to cases in which the security of Japan or international peace and security in the Far East is threatened. It may well have been possible that a lot was left to interpretation. The Abe administration may have wanted to just change that, because they were ordered to by the U.S.

[Yokohammer]

Under the previous laws, Japan would be unable to defend or back up U.S. forces that were being attacked while they would be defending Japan. That is simply unacceptable.

I think you have this wrong.

According to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan ...

Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9).

Without the constitutional revision Japan is allowed to assist (defend) the U.S. when it is defending Japan, but is not allowed to defend the U.S. in other conflicts.

Do you have a link to that information? Edit: OK, I got the Wikipedia link.

My understanding is that Japan cannot even defend U.S. troupes that are engaged in the defense of Japan, but my knowledge on this is based on what I read in the media.

I (or said media) could be wrong on that, but still I think it is not unreasonable that any defense treaty between countries has mutual obligations to defend each other.

I am quite sure that Japan can defend U.S. forces in any conflict that involves an attack on Japan. It has been that way for as long as I can remember (which figures, because the treaty was initially signed before I was born ... but not by much ...). It would be a very lopsided treaty otherwise.

But this is what I mean about confusion and going in circles. What media said that Japan couldn't defend U.S. forces engaged in defending Japan? Or rather, who were they quoting? There's an awful lot of BS going around about this.

Russell, I'm not entirely against Japan taking on a larger peacekeeping role, if that's what it really is. Neither are the J-gov't opposition parties, and I suspect that a much larger percentage of Japan's population would be more positive about such changes if they were presented in a clear and comprehensive way, but that simply has not been done. The bill is too vague and ambiguous in many ways. The opposition has presented "compromise proposals" that are a little more specific, but Abe's gang have rejected them out of hand. The whole thing is too one-sided and too rushed. It's not ready yet.

To put that in perspective, the introduction of the consumption tax required eight diet sessions to be finalised (I think it was). This change to a constitution that has been in place for 70 years was rammed through in just one diet session.

[Russell]

Hammer, I agree it would have been helpful if this change was discussed in more depth. Also, because it is perceived by the Japanese population as such a fundamental change, it would have been good if Abe would have appeared more in the media to discuss these issues. In western countries it is quite common that the head of state and/or prime minister holds a speech on television to explain his/her vision in case important decisions are being made. Just as well, he/she may appear on a discussion show.

I have never seen anything like that in Japan. But then again, I do not watch much TV here...

(Pfftt, lots of political discussions on a Sunday afternoon)

[kurogane]

At any rate, the vibrancy of Japanese democracy is clear to see by the discussion going on even here amongst the great underinformed. Despite what the pantywetters scream, there has been no constitutional change, simply a realignment of an informal if enduring convention, though given the challenges both written English and Japanese present it's easy to see how those of that ilk might think otherwise. The stupid kids that didn't get their big piece of cake are still holding their breath, but if we're lucky that means we'll be rid of those retarded fat fucks soon, and we can get on with throwing out these neo-con weirdos.

[Samurai_Jerk]

My Japanese friend who's a super lefty and politically active was taking about this last night. He agrees with the protesters but he thinks it's too little too late because a lot of them are in a demographic that didn't vote in high numbers so they got that they deserved by letting all the old farts keep the LDP in power. I'm not sure how accurate his assessment is but I thought I'd add his two cents.

Yokohammer, I don't know how deep you had to dig to know that's what Abe and his douchey cronies wanted to do. I don't pay that much attention to Japanese politics, I almost never watch Japanese TV, and I don't regularly look at Japanese news sites in English or Japanese and I knew.

[kurogane]

My Japanese friend who's a super lefty and politically active was taking about this last night. He agrees with the protesters but he thinks it's too little too late because a lot of them are in a demographic that didn't vote in high numbers so they got that they deserved by letting all the old farts keep the LDP in power. I'm not sure how accurate his assessment is but I thought I'd add his two cents.

Nice to hear I am not alone out here. The demonstrations were great: democracy in action. I would be quite curious to find out what the average voting rate was amongst the demonstrators. I know lots of nice lefties that refuse to vote, but then fulminate when people like Abe get elected by the people that do vote and then go ahead and do the things they promised they would do

Yokohammer, I don't know how deep you had to dig to know that's what Abe and his douchey cronies wanted to do. I don't pay that much attention to Japanese politics, I almost never watch Japanese TV, and I don't regularly look at Japanese news sites in English or Japanese and I knew.

Again, "Grandma, what big teeth you have." Abe2.0 has always had a rather clearly articulated User Service Agreement. This wasn't a Trojan Horse affair. As refreshing as it was to see a leader lead rather than govern by poll numbers it would have been better even for the fascistic curmudgeons of the LDP to allow a greater degree of consulation and debate, but pointing to your recent overwhelming electoral mandate is a pretty good way to shut up the opposition that didn't vote for you anyways.

I am rather intrigued by something Russell wrote above: the extension of self-defence to include collective action by members of an alliance in the face of military threats seems a rather logical development given the changing geo-political climate, and especially the rise of the Red Fascist behemoth. Too bad a Sith Lord had to come up with the idea. And if Article 9 retains its historic symbolic value they can choose to negotiate and cajole rather than bomb and strafe, which would be nice.

[Yokohammer]

OK ... let's try and sort this mess out a bit. I have been discussing with the assumption that people already knew the following, but apparently not.

Before Abe's LDP Was Elected

Expectations
The Abe Gang had clearly stated that they were going to make collective self defence possible and revise the constitution to ensure the safety of the country and people. Fine. Note that they said (read the manifesto) "revise" the constitution, which is an idea that not everyone was against. The expectation was that such a historic change to the cornerstone of Japanese society would involve in-depth debate and discussion and allow for corrections that would be as satisfactory for everyone as possible. You know, that democratic process thing. In fact, revising the constitution requires a two-thirds vote from both houses (a supermajority) so in-depth and no doubt lengthy discussion and some compromise would have been necessary to garner the necessary support.

Opposition
Some people were simply opposed to any constitutional revision right from the beginning, and I assume their position has remained unchanged. Fair enough. Given time they might have been convinced, but for the purpose of this discussion we can put them aside.

Voter Apathy
This goes without saying, but a significant number of voters either didn't vote at all (as I remember the voter turnout for Abe's election was pretty low) or just voted LDP because they always do and couldn't be arsed to look into the details. We know that, we can put that one to bed too.


After Abe's LDP Was Elected

Betrayed Expectations
The idea of revising the constitution was changed mid-track to "reinterpreting" the constitution, which has been deemed unconstitutional by the majority of constitution scholars consulted as well as a former chief judge of the supreme court. To repeat, revising the constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority from both houses, which the LDP wouldn't have been able to swing without achieving more widespread support, whereas simply introducing a bill like the one that was just rammed through was doable with their current majority. So they changed their tactics to slam the bill through in one short diet session without allowing any discussion or compromise.

--------

Get it? That's why people are pissed off. They scammed the diet and the people with an underhanded, unconstitutional tactic.

= Summary =

* Revising the constitution after sufficient discussion and with two-thirds support = OK.

* One-sidedly reinterpreting the constitution to achieve the same result without allowing discussion or achieving widespread support = NOT OK.

-------

[Russell]

Hammer, I would argue that reinterpreting the constitution is preferable, because it does not involve fundamental changes. It also will be easier to reverse.

[Coligny]

Hammer, I would argue that reinterpreting the constitution is preferable, because it does not involve fundamental changes. It also will be easier to reverse.

And jail those who did it ...

[Mike Oxlong]

Accidental Renaissance Art

[wagyl]

as I remember the voter turnout for Abe's election was pretty low.

These days , these stats are compiled by fans: Japanese general election, 2014: Turnout 52.66%
Looking back quickly through the last few elections, 2012: 59.32%
2009: 69.28%
2005: 67.51%
2003: 59.86% (Koizumi's attempt to get a popular mandate for his reform policies [sound familiar??] after gaining leadership, with a similarly low turnout possibly because of voter dissatisfaction with political games, and resulting in a reduced majority for him)
2000: 64.45%

Sacrifices made in conducting this research: I was confronted with this photo:

[Takechanpoo]

[Yokohammer]

"Abe"? As in Abraham Lincoln type "Abe"?

Takechan, how the hell do you find these guys?