The ‘North Korean Threat’ as a facilitator of Japanese remilitarization

The much-publicized ‘North Korean threat’ and, in a slightly different way, the ‘Chinese threat’ offer an obvious and, at first sight, seemingly heaven-sent justification for Japanese remilitarization. Even proponents admit that ‘The Japanese public, which remains apprehensive of even minimal use of force, is another constraining factor [to remilitarization].’ These threats in fact are not heaven-sent but, in their different ways, largely constructed to serve the purpose.

Both are built on a bedrock of racism. Colonialism/imperialism and racism go hand in hand and feed on each other. We rule over a foreign people, because we believe they are inferior, perhaps even sub-human, and our rule over them proves that we are superior. The Korean peninsula and much of China were part of the Japanese empire, and because the past has not been exorcised in the way it was, to quite an extent, in Germany, these attitudes pollute the present. Japan is not alone in this, and we can see variants around the world, in the US, Britain, and wherever there is a present or past colonial relationship. One important aspect of racism is that it distorts and degrades people’s ability to think rationally and realistically about others. By ascribing irrationality – essentially non-human behavior – to others, it leads to a false, if comforting, perception of the situation. The racist becomes a victim of delusion. It gives rise, for instance, to Donald Trump’s assertion that ‘Rocket Man {Kim Jong Un] is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.’ You can only believe such nonsense by abandoning rationality and embracing fantasy, something to which it is alleged that Trump is prone.

On the elite level, these antagonisms towards North Korea and China are exacerbated by chagrin. A century ago, Japan lorded over both. Now Japan is still, as Gavan McCormack puts it, a client state of the US, but China is economically and militarily larger than Japan and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Even North Korea, while much smaller and poorer, is an independent state. No foreign generals, American or Chinese, there to give ‘guidance.’

Clearly, China is a competitor to Japan in many ways, and it does possess substantial and growing military power. China could, perhaps, pose a threat to Japan in the future. North Korea is clearly different. It has a population 1/5 of Japan’s and an economy much smaller. And despite Japan’s peace constitution, its military budget in 2016, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, was $47 billion. That is about 13 times that of North Korea if we use State Department figures, and 50 times if we use an estimate quoted in the South Korean National Assembly in 2013. North Korea has not the ability to attack Japan nor reason to do so, and does not appear to ever have threatened it. The danger for Japan is that if the US attacks North Korea, then as the country hosting the main forward US bases in Asia, it will become a target of Korean retaliation. Exactly what that would entail is unknown, but for what it is worth, a recent estimate put the possible numbers of dead in a nuclear attack on Seoul and Tokyo at up to 3.8 million.

Mr. Abe seems to think such dangers are worthwhile in his pursuit of remilitarization, but it should be remembered that none of this is inevitable. Japan could have turned to a neutralist path in the 1950s (which is why the CIA channeled funds to Kishi Nobusuke) and back in September 2002 when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi went to Pyongyang. The resulting Japan- DPRK Pyongyang Declaration promised all sorts of good things, but little has come to pass. It appears that the George W. Bush administration was very concerned that a Tokyo-Pyongyang rapprochement would upend its strategy in East Asia and took steps to prevent peace from breaking out. The Agreed Framework signed by the Clinton administration was scuttled, and pressure was put on the Japanese. The very emotional but highly suspicious issue of abductees still continues to bedevil relations despite further negotiations between Pyongyang and Tokyo; perhaps the matter is too much of a crowd-pleaser for Japanese politicians to resolve it. American hostility to detente between Japan and North Korea–as part of its strategy to contain China and strengthen Japan’s client relationship (‘the US-Japan alliance’)–and the populist advantages to Japanese politicians of inciting anti-North Korean–or perhaps just anti-Korean–feelings together suggest that the pious hopes of Japanese liberals that relations will be normalized will be thwarted for the immediate future at least.

The dead end road of Japanese remilitarization

Remilitarization is clearly a response to Japan’s client state relationship with the US. The Peace Constitution came about as a result of Japan’s defeat, primarily but not exclusively by the United States. One way to exorcise that defeat and its consequences would be to attempt to return to the status quo ante 1945 and become a ‘normal country’ with the same rights to belligerency as the victor nations (and even Germany). This is understandable, but it is taking the wrong direction. Militarism wreaked terrible damage on Japan and its neighbors, and it is that which should be recognized and renounced. To be fair, this is difficult in a world suffused with hypocrisy and double standards; why should the defeated do things that the victors do not. When has the United States, to take the leading example, apologized for its history and renounced belligerency? Besides this difficult ethical issue, however, there are practical reasons why Japan should not remilitarize but rather forge a path as a pioneer of a primarily pacifist country where soft power replaces hard power.

Firstly, Japanese remilitarization is gestating within the womb of American strategy in East Asia, which focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on the containment and possible dismemberment of China. If the US goes to war against China, most probably through an attack on North Korea, Japan will almost certainly be drawn in. The consequences would be disastrous for Japan and less severe for the US unless there is an all-out nuclear exchange, and if there were victory over China, the benefits would accrue to the US and not Japan. If there were booty, it is unlikely that the US would share it.

Secondly, ethical considerations and long-term consequences for humanity aside, military power may make sense for some countries and not others. It makes sense for countries such as North Korea or China that are threatened by far more powerful adversaries, as a deterrent. It also makes sense for the US, which has a global empire to maintain. It does not make much sense for, say the Netherlands or New Zealand, which face no credible enemies, even less so for Britain where it encourages dangerous imperial nostalgia, and it does not make sense for Japan. Even without a formal US-Japan alliance (the client relationship), the US would not tolerate an attack on Japan by North Korea or China for pragmatic balance of power reasons.

The question of ‘military power making sense’ takes place within history; sometimes it makes sense, and at other times it does not. Take Japan for the three quarters of a century after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. At that time, empires were all the rage, and if you didn’t have one you would almost certainly end up as part of somebody else’s. The British had one, as did the French, the Dutch, and the Russians. Germany was trying to get into the act, as was the United States, which introduced a new style of imperialism, partly based on compellence and threat (what is often misleadingly called ‘diplomacy’) but also by ruthless armed force, as in the Philippines. In these circumstances, it made sense for Japan, too, to carve itself out an empire.

The Japanese and American empires had two major intersections. The second was at Pearl Harbor in 1941, but that had been preceded by the Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905, which, in the words of Bruce Cumings, ‘ acknowledged a trade-off between the Philippines and Korea: Japan would not question American rights in its colony and the United States would not challenge Japan’s new protectorate.’ Neither Taft nor Katsura could know that 40 years later the US would own all of Japan and half of Korea.

Japan’s annexation of Korea, its puppet rule over Manchuria and its earlier seizure of Taiwan in 1895 all made economic sense. The colonies provided raw materials, closed markets, labor and a place for Japan’s surplus population and something probably unique to Japan whereby parts of the empire became a blueprint for the future: ‘The planners at the South Manchurian Railroad Research Department, for example, called for an ultra-modern economy in the colonies in order to transcend what they saw as the deeply flawed economy of the homeland.’ Those times are over and cannot be recaptured.

Contemporary Japan lies between two behemoths – rising China and declining America. There are no great technological impediments to Japan becoming a major military power with the full range of assets, including nuclear weapons and delivery systems. But what could be done with that military might? China is too big and strong; there can be no more seizures of Taiwan or Manchuria. The US encourages Japanese remilitarization, because it is confident that Japan is a tamed beast that can be used against China. But as Palmerston pointed out back in the 19th century, countries do not have permanent friends and enemies, only permanent interests. Japan and the US could fall out, and Japan might desire to exclude the US from Asia as it tried to do in 1941. But that would be a ridiculous dream.

In the short term, Japanese remilitarization exacerbates danger in Northeast Asia. It feeds on crisis on the Korean peninsula and the region to provide it with a proclaimed justification. It enhances US intransigence towards North Korea and makes a peaceful settlement less likely. It sees a war in Korea as an opportunity to intervene, thereby breaking free of the constraints against foreign military adventures.

But in the long term, remilitarization leads to a dead end, both for Japan and the region. It offers no prospects nor hope for prosperity or security.

Retired New Zealand-based academic Tim Beal has written two books and numerous articles on Korean issues and US global policy. He is an Asia-Pacific Journal contributing editor and writes for NK News and Zoom in Korea amongst others. He maintains the website Asian Geopolitics.