Currently America is embroiled in a difficult Iraqi occupation. Was the impetus for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent bloody occupation that still continues today a good idea? People will be debating this for years to come. A lot still depends on what happens henceforth. However, for better or worse, most Americans feel the war in Iraq was a mistake.
Although there are numerous views on this, the issue at stake for me comes down to this: does America need to flex its military muscle not only to specifically defend America from imminent threat, not only to defend American interests abroad, but to act preemptively in such a way so as to force via military coercion other countries to take up democracy, rule by law, and a fair measure of free market capitalism. We are told that the stakes are very high: loose nukes, bio-weapons, and terrorists ready to use them.
If I might speak loosely, the idea on one side is a sort of army of light. This army will stand ready and when some terrible dictator somewhere, especially in a country of strategic importance, gets out of hand, this army of light will swoop down upon the dictator quickly vanquishing him and then set up a functioning democracy complete with rule of law and a fair dose of free market capitalism. It certainly sounds good as a sort of story one might tell a child. But is it plausible as long term strategy? Should things improve in Iraq, is Iran next? Syria? North Korea? Why not Venezuela?
If you think the issue has been settled and the tide has turned in the opposite direction, perhaps you’d best think again. When the leading contender in the opposing camp uses antiwar language but is a closet hawk, you know that this is a policy still holding a lot of interest among the powers that be. Hm, well one nuclear bomb in the hands of a terrorist is indeed a frightening thing. So who am I to complain?
Now the question for this blog, of course, is not what America should do, but Japan. What should Japan’s stake be in this new and dangerous game? Should Japanese soldiers be willing to go along side their American and British cohorts should America decide it necessary to invade Iran or Syria or North Korea or … Venezuela …
I personally cannot answer that question for all the people of Japan, but I can say this, I don’t need a poll to tell you that the post-war spirit in Japan has been one of pacifism. While many Japanese are not enough aware of the misery that the Japanese military caused throughout Asia, they are well aware of the misery that war caused in Japan. Almost no one in Japan is anxious to get involved in overseas military missions. Japan is a pacifist country.
One may wonder then, why Shinzo Abe’s poll numbers are still in lower forties and have not bottomed out into the single digits. I think it’s clear that most people in Japan don’t know what Shinzo Abe is about. There are those in a America who in fact do know what Abe is about, and they appreciate him. They are the neoconservatives.
Neoconservatism, as most people now know, is the motivating force behind American’s invasion of Iraq. As the story is often told, neoconservatives had been calling for an invasion of Iraq for years, but had had only minimal power in Washington. Yet on the eve of September 11, 2001 they were enough of them in the relevant positions to have an important influence on the events that unfolded next. Less than two years after the terror attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, America had soldiers on the ground in Iraq. The mission: democracy, rule of law, and a fair does of free market capitalism. The result …
Now, where do neoconservatives nest? Where is their head office? One of their most popular nesting grounds would have to be the American Enterprise Institute. The CS Monitor, offering us a 101 course in neoconservatism, tells us that:
Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq “could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace.” AEI – the de facto headquarters for neoconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
AEI, “the de facto headquarters for neoconservative policy”. Indeed, AEI is now behind the push to move the battle front forward into Iran. Take a look at their page for dealing with this topic. It is called the The Iranian Threat and there you will find articles with titles like, Should the U.S. Pursue Regime Change in Iran?, How We Can Fight Tehran, Tracking the Enemy, The Wider War, Confronting Iran — Force Is the Only Answer, and so on and so forth.
Do I need to tell you what the AEI policy position is on North Korea? I didn’t think so. However, are you aware of the deep connection between Iran and North Korea? Here is what Michael A. Ledeen informs us in one AEI article:
The relationship between Iran and North Korea is still underappreciated. Many people laughed at President Bush when he included North Korea in the Axis of Evil. They are not laughing today, but they still have not understood the intimacy of the relationship between Pyongyang and Tehran. Iran has had many teams working with the North Koreans for years now. Iran has tested North Korean missiles, while North Koreans have dug a tunnel network around the west and north of Tehran, so that the Iranians can conduct activities safe from the prying eyes of our spy satellites. And the North Koreans have helped the Iranians with their nuclear program as well, which is one of the reasons Iran has advanced so rapidly. Moreover, the Iranians have fully appreciated the effect of “going nuclear.” They think the North Koreans have buffaloed the United States, and they believe Iran will only be able to stand up to American power if they possess nuclear weapons.
One AEI pundit, David Frum, goes so far as to call for a nuclear Japan to deter North Korea and Iran:
Not only would the nuclearization of Japan be a punishment of China and North Korea, but it would go far to meet our goal of dissuading Iran–it would show Tehran that the United States and its friends will aggressively seek to correct any attempt by rogue states to unsettle any regional nuclear balance.
And so it goes.
Now, make no mistake, neoconservatives have been at the forefront of wanting article 9 of the Japanese constitution, the peace clause, revised. If you think this has something to do with Japan or the Japanese people, you are wrong. It has everything to do with the neoconservatives in America, and their ascension into power after 9/11.
Indeed reading articles on their site, one gets the distinct idea that they are far more excited about the prospect of revising article 9 than nearly every Japanese person. One article, and pay close attention to the date — June 1, 2001, three months before 9/11 — is entitled, Could Japan Become the “England of the Far East”? and states:
Today, it is up to the Japanese people and their Parliament to decide whether or not to revise Article 9 and once and for all eliminate its ambiguity. Perhaps there are good reasons for maintaining its language and simply changing its “official interpretation.” However, the Japanese government should no longer try to use Article 9 as a shield to avoid international and bilateral cooperative military activities needed to safeguard Japan’s security interests.
Japan shares vital strategic interests with the U.S. globally as well as regionally and should play at least a supporting role in trying to protect those interests. These shared interests are particularly evident in the Middle East. Thus, if another Gulf war occurs and Japan stays on the sidelines or only dispatches minesweepers after the danger has passed as it did in 1991, it could severely reduce public and political support for the U.S.-Japan alliance. To avert this possibility, long-needed discussions of the international role of the alliance should no longer be shirked.
Reading through the article, it sounds very much like Shinzo Abe’s plans for Japan.
Oh yeah, and wait, did I happen to mention who else, aside from George Bush, has frequented the de facto neocon headquarters. Yes, that’s right, Shinzo Abe himself.
While acting as the secretary-general of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party in 2003 and visiting America, Shinzo Abe made sure to stop by the head office and deliver a report to Irving Kristol the godfather of the neocon movement. (Wikipedia link.) What did he have to report?
First Abe talked about Iraq:
As a politician and as a human being, I feel a tremendous heaviness in my heart at the sight of American soldiers and allies shedding their blood. However, this sorrow must no doubt be overcome, and democracy must be firmly established in Iraq. For this is, I believe, the only way in which their sacrifices can be redeemed. And this indeed is the outcome that Japan hopes to see as an ally of the United States.
Has Shinzo Abe ever spoken so eloquently about the victims of the Pacific War? Or the victims of the Japanese colonization of Asia? Abe continues …
The violent attacks of September 11, 2001, the subsequent war on terrorism, and the emergence of a “new form of war” have forced Japan to become involved in the “new form of war” as an active participant. The decision thus made by Prime Minister Koizumi to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq truly represents a “historic decision,” I firmly believe this to be a most profound decision resulting from deep thought given to the long-term future of the nation. An alliance bereft of solidarity and trust is no more than a piece of paper. Prime Minister Koizumi’s decision provides proof that the Japan-U.S. alliance is not a mere piece of paper and that it constitutes a powerful bond underscored by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
In other words it is Japan’s future to assist America in this “new form of war.” This is not to be a paper alliance, but one forged in blood. In other words, Japan will commit troops in the future to such actions.
What specifically does it mean to render the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty more sustainable by raising the level of reciprocity? I believe the answer to this question is very closely related to the issue of the exercise of the right of collective self-defense. … Notwithstanding this, the government of Japan has continued to subscribe to the interpretation that, while Japan does possess the right of collective self-defense under international law, it is barred from the exercise of this right by its Constitution. This explanation for why Japan is “unable to exercise the right of collective self-defense” is for domestic consumption and cannot find acceptance in the world at large. It is clear that the interpretations adopted by the government of Japan have, in many respects, reached their practical limit.
Stop. Think about this. Who is Abe representing? The Japanese. Most Japanese are pacifist. What does Abe think about this? Does he think it’s his job to represent them, to represent their views? No, he clearly scoffs at the Japanese people here for their ignorance and docility. Abe knows what is best, the neoconservative new world order. The people of Japan don’t. They are just docile consumers that haven’t been put in their place, yet.
It’s inconceivable to me that any world leader could go to another country and say things like this about his constituency. He is suppose to represent the people, not lord it over them while kowtowing to foreign think tanks.
But wait that’s not all.
Japan has become, for the most part, allergic to any discussion of security. It is not logical; it is an allergy like a physical response. Afraid of bringing on this allergic reaction, each administration has avoided discussing matters which they were actually required to address.
Has Abe told the Japanese people this? Can you imagine a politician campaigning against pacificists by telling them that their pacifism is basically a kind of sickness that needs to be cured. Yet, perhaps Abe doesn’t even have the guts to tell his own people so he slouches off to his neoconservative buddies in America to whine about his frivilous subjects.
The general election held in November last year was notable in that groups advocating protection of the current Constitution suffered considerable losses. Thanks to this development, constitutional revision is now being discussed as a real and present issue for the first time.
Huh? Hold the press, he’s talking about the 2003 election where the DPJ picked up 40 seats thanks to their manifesto and the LDP lost 10 seats. So how could that be good? Well, I guess it depends on who else lost seats, doesn’t it? That would be the socialists and the communists.
Now, I’m not a socialist or a communist, I’m a free marketer. But this does force me to sit up and wonder, what is happening in Japan? Is the DPJ really such a force for good in Japan? Abe is thankful for losing 10 seats? What’s he talking about?
One more quote:
Irving Kristol’s expression, “mugged by reality,” so aptly captures the state that Japan finds itself in today. Quite literally, Japan was “mugged” into accepting the “new post-9/11 reality.”
This is Abe tipping his hat to his godfather, Irving Kristol.
I would recommend reading the speech in its entirely. Again, here is the link. I have no doubt that Abe is sincere in that he has wished to change the constitution before he discovered the neocons. Indeed, America wanted Japan to revise within a mere few years after the constitution had been established. Wikipedia reports:
Soon after the adoption of the constitution of Japan in 1947, the Chinese Civil War ended in victory for the Communist Party of China in 1949 and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. As a consequence, the U.S. was left without its expected military ally - the Republic of China - against communism in the Pacific, and there was a desire on the part of the United States occupation forces for Japan to take a more active military role in the struggle against communism during the Cold War.
Even if Abe was intent on changing the constitution prior to discovering the neocons, I am sure he has found them to be a perfect vehicle through which he can fulfill his purposes. Their philosophy clearly suits him well.
If viewing Shinzo Abe as a neocon causes your head to spin, it shouldn’t. It doesn’t matter that many neocons might offer social conservatism through the trappings of western christianity and western tradition. Abe can do the same in Japan by working with supposedly traditional aspects of pseudo-Japanese culture.
For those who don’t understand this, the best place to start is with an article in Reason magazine regarding neocons’ views on evolution, creationism and God. There we find some quotes by Irving Kristol, the godfather, telling us about his favorite philosopher Leo Strauss:
“What made him [Leo Strauss] so controversial within the academic community was his disbelief in the Enlightenment dogma that `the truth will make men free.’ … Strauss was an intellectual aristocrat who thought that the truth could make some [emphasis Kristol’s] minds free, but he was convinced that there was an inherent conflict between philosophic truth and political order, and that the popularization and vulgarization of these truths might import unease, turmoil and the release of popular passions hitherto held in check by tradition and religion with utterly unpredictable, but mostly negative, consequences. … There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people … There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”
Perhaps this explains why it was so easy for President George Bush when visiting Junichiro Koizumi to visit the shrine of the dead Japanese Emperor Meiji.
What wonders these neoconservatives are.
