By
Oscar Grenfell - WSWS
The
government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe passed sweeping laws through the
Japanese lower house yesterday, allowing for the foreign deployment of Japanese
troops under provisions for “collective defense” with its military allies,
above all the United States.
The
passage of the laws marks an escalation in the Abe government’s campaign,
initiated when it came to office in December 2013, to revive Japanese
militarism by “reinterpreting” the country’s nominally pacifist post-World War
II constitution. It complements the agreement signed between Abe and US
President Barack Obama in April, providing for Japan to participate in US
military actions beyond its own shores.
The
bills, which have been the subject of parliamentary debate for several months,
were put to the security committee of the lower house on Wednesday. Opposition
MP’s sought to block the vote, holding up placards against Abe’s legislation,
and seeking to obstruct voting procedures. When the laws passed the committee,
they boycotted the lower house vote on Thursday.
According
to opinion polls, public opposition to the laws is as high as 80 percent, On
Wednesday as many as 100,000 protesters gathered outside the Diet in Tokyo,
while several thousand demonstrated again on Thursday, carrying placards such
as “Scrap War Bills” and “Stop Abe’s Recklessness.”
The
bills will now be put to the upper house, where Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party
and its coalition partners hold an effective majority, and are expected to
pass. The lower house can overrule any objections.
The
laws may yet face legal challenges. On June 4, three constitutional scholars
testified to a Diet sub-committee that the laws were unconstitutional. According
to the New York Times, surveys have indicated that over 90 percent of
Japanese experts view the laws as a violation of the so-called pacifist clauses
of the charter.
The
mass opposition to the legislation threatens to provoke a crisis for the Abe
government, with numbers of commentaries drawing parallels with Abe’s
grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, who was forced to resign as premier in June 1960,
in the face of mass hostility to a US-Japan security pact he had signed.
The
official opposition parties are above all concerned about the domestic and
international implications of openly pursuing the same imperialist policies
that led to the catastrophes of the Second World War.
Katsuya
Okada, head of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the main opposition party,
summed up the fear of mass anti-war sentiment. He stated, before boycotting
Thursday’s vote, “It is a huge mistake to set aside a constitutional
interpretation built up by governments for 70 years without sufficient public
understanding and debate.”
Abe’s
policies reflect the determination of the Japanese ruling elite to more
aggressively assert their interests in the Asia-Pacific. They have been brought
forward under the auspices of the US “pivot to Asia” and a military build-up
against China in the region. As part of the “pivot,” Washington has encouraged
the revival of Japanese militarism.
The
entire Japanese political establishment is implicated in supporting this
program, including the opposition parties. The previous DPJ government
deliberately ratcheted up tensions with China in 2012 by “nationalising” the
disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.
Abe
all but acknowledged that his government’s legislation was primarily directed
against China, telling reporters after Thursday’s vote, “The security situation
around Japan is getting tougher.... These bills are vital to protect the
Japanese people’s lives and prevent war.”
Since
Abe’s trip to Washington in April, during which the new military agreement
between the two nations was signed, Japan’s integration into the provocations
of the US and its allies has escalated.
At
the G-7 summit in June, Abe played a central role in inserting a clause into
the dialogue’s communique, obliquely directed against China’s activities in the
South China Sea. The previous month, the US and its regional allies, including
the Philippines and Australia, had carried out provocations against China, over
long-standing disputes in the sea. Both the US and Australia are reported to be
considering deploying aircraft and warships into Chinese-claimed territory in
the area—an action that could trigger a military conflict.
In
June, Japanese spy planes, acting in collaboration with the Philippine military
flew near Chinese-claimed territory in the South China Sea, in a provocation
mirroring similar actions by the US since the start of the year.
Yesterday,
Japanese top military commander, Admiral Katsutoshi Kawano, on a visit to
Washington, told reporters there had been “talk” of Japanese patrols and
anti-submarine activities in the South China Sea. Echoing the talking points of
the Obama administration, he sought to present China as an expansionist threat
in the region.
This
month, Japanese forces are also participating for the first time in the
biennial Talisman Saber military exercise. Involving some 33,000 Australian and
US military personnel, the war games, held in Northern Australia, are a
rehearsal for a US-led war against China.
Over
the past two weeks, Japan has also escalated tensions with China in the East
China Sea, with Abe’s cabinet denouncing a new Chinese gas field development in
the region.
According
to the Associated Press, US State Department spokesman John Kirby would not
comment on the Abe government’s legislation, but underscored Washington’s
support for the revival of Japanese militarism. Kirby said that the US
welcomes, “Japan’s ongoing efforts to strengthen the alliance and play a more
active role in regional and international security activities.”
China’s
foreign ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, issued a statement on the laws
yesterday, which declared, “It is fully justified to ask if Japan is going to
give up its exclusively defense-oriented policy.”
Hua
pointed to the 70th anniversary of the ouster of Japanese forces from China at
the end of World War II: “We solemnly urge the Japanese side to draw hard
lessons from history... and refrain from jeopardising China’s sovereignty and
security interests or crippling regional peace and stability.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário