뉴스레터

Question:

Ozawa Ichiro, considered a prominent figure in the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), recently visited Korea. He is an advocate of the "normal nation" thesis. What is this thesis?

Answer:

Four views regarding "military power"

One of the fundamental causes of Japan's distortion of history is the political volatility surrounding Japan's constitutional revision. The assessment of the "postwar system" by the conservative right?advocates of constitutional revision?is ultimately a matter of national identity. And at the very core of Japan's national identity lies an evaluation of "war" as a form of Japanese "state action." Accordingly, it is important to pinpoint the type of war predicated by Ozawa's pet theory, the "normal nation" thesis.

Wars can be classified into three categories: war of self-defense, war of deterrence, and war of aggression. The table below provides an overview of this classification scheme.

As the table illustrates, politicians can be divided into four camps according to their view on the role of military power. The four camps will be denoted as follows: "Nation of peace," "nation of commerce," "normal nation," and "nation of power." The "nation of peace" camp rejects all war, while the "nation of commerce" camp supports "wars for self-defense." The "normal nation" camp supports both "wars of self-defense" and "wars of deterrence." Finally, the "nation of power" camp supports all forms of war as legitimate diplomatic means. The four-part classification demonstrates even within the conservative faction, which supports constitutional revision, there exist at least four camps. This, in turn, indicates just how diverse the Japanese political spectrum is.

In the international community, policymakers of a given nation can generally choose from three forms of alliances. The first is an alliance that premises constitutional interpretation and does not allow the exercise of the right to collective self-defense. The second is an alliance in which the allies aim to help each other through the exercise of the right to collective self-defense. The third is an alliance whose goal is "power-sharing" as a means of power politics.

Volatility of Japanese domestic politics requires careful attention

If we designate the faction that calls for "neutrality" as the "nation of peace" camp, the faction that calls for the first form of alliance can be called the "nation of commerce" camp. The second form of alliance can be attributed to the "normal nation" camp," and the third form of alliance, to the "nation of power" camp. The form of alliance that a country adopts cannot but be affected by the changes in national power.

The Hatoyama cabinet is calling for an equal United States-Japan alliance and Ozawa is a supporter of the "normal nation" thesis. They epitomize the foreign policy direction of the Japanese government, which seeks change. The determinant factor distinguishing one form of alliance from another is the differing understandings of "right to collective self-defense."

According to the aforementioned analytical framework, there has to be a distinction between Ozawa Ichiro's "normal nation" thesis and the "nation of power" thesis. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution limits the activities of JSDF (Japan Self-Defense Forces) to "wars of self-defense." If calls for Constitutional revision merely envision the expansion of the role of the JSDF to include engagements in "wars of deterrence" sanctioned by the UNSC (United Nations Security Council), then one cannot say Japan is aspiring to become a hegemonic military power.

The Hatoyama cabinet, unlike the Abe cabinet, is against the pursuit of the right to collective defense. Therefore, it does seem likely that there will be a major policy shift in the near future that will turn Japan into a "normal nation," let alone a "nation of power."