Kan maybe not so unrealistic

PM Kan has been reported to suggest that the SDF would go to Korea in case of war. This has been judged to be unrealistic by some in the ROK. It certainly might cause problems for an untested force that has never participated* in exercises with the US/Korea forces (not ground combat anyway), and with no known (at least not widely known) planning for such actions with South Korea or the US. Then one would have to wonder just what the SDF could do that the ROK could not do about 10 zillion times better in a war in Korea. And how would the SDF know where the abducted Japanese are in North Korea? Would it be involved in the war only to protect Japanese? "Oh, a nearby ROK unit is is isolated, outnumbered, and needs immediate assistance. Sorry, we are only here for self-defense and that means Japanese citizens. Gomen ne. Gambatte!"

Of course there just might be some small possibility of a slight objection to Japanese military forces in Korea by the Koreans and Chinese even though they could be reassured by explaining that the SDF is not really a military as Japan is prohibited from having a military by its constitution.

So I thought, but then Martin Fackler wrote this article for the New York Times: Japan to Shift its Military Toward Threats from China

... Japan’s new Democratic Party government has been pulling closer to Washington, spurred by a bruising diplomatic clash three months ago with China over the disputed islands and fears about North Korea’s nuclear program.

.... Washington has proposed forging stronger three-way military ties that would also include its other key regional ally, South Korea...

...During a visit to the region last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged Japan to join American military exercises with South Korea. In a meeting with Japan’s defense minister, Toshimi Kitazawa, Admiral Mullen said the two nations needed to support South Korea after North Korea’s deadly shelling last month of a South Korean island...

Fackler also vaguely notes that the ROK vice minister of defense visited Tokyo last week to discuss "increased bilateral cooperation" with his Japanese counterpart.

*Or if it did, it was kept very much under wraps, so much so that most US military never knew it. In other words, nearly impossible.

Japan as #3: the benefits of hiring out national defense

Japan has come in as number 3 on the totally reliable, accurate, and based in reality Global Peace Index.

This rigorous scientific survey measures such things as such as "conflicts with foreign countries, numbers of murder cases, risks of terrorism, the level of respect for human rights and military expenditures." Japan Times

There are a total of 23 areas evaluated. I am not sure if one criteria would be: "Said country should have a lop-sided---or one-sided---"security treaty" which is somewhat weirdly referred to as an "alliance" with the country with the world's most powerful military. That would help in the area of reduced military expenditures, conflicts with foreign countries, and possibly the risk of terrorism, and it might have been enough to propel Japan ahead of warmongering #7 Luxembourg. I wonder, is the US penalized for providing personal and arms for the military security of Japan? A read of the Results and Methodology PDF at GPI's site might lead one to think so. No mention of the US military role in Japan's defense.

Would other criteria be: Does said country respect the human rights* of those of different ethnic/racial/national backgrounds? Has said country signed the Hague Convention Treaty on International Child Abductions? Not sure how those would affect the level of respect for human rights. Perhaps Japan improved four notches because we don't hear right-wingers in the government nor Hobbesian Bushidoists like Fujiwara Masahiko railing against too many human rights as much as we did a few years ago under the LDP.

A check of the GPI website shows a few other interesting tidbits which makes one wonder if the creators of The Onion are not behind this whole thing**. The main findings show that the most peaceful societies contain the following attributes in addition to the above:

• A well-functioning government
• High levels of freedom of information
• Good relations with neighboring states (We can see why Japan has improved in this area compared to the Koizumi/Abe eras.)
• Acceptance of others

(A a partial list from page 1 of the 2010 GPI Fact Sheet PDF available at the site.)

The lack of a refugee population also seems to raise the peace index of a country. Very helpful for a country like Japan that allows almost no refugees in.

A number of famous people have signed on as "Endorsers" of the GPI agreeing that: ..."without a world that is basically peaceful, it will be exceedingly difficult to solve many of the intractable problems facing humanity today." How insightful is that?

*The Results and Methodology PDF at the site uses "Levels of disrespect for human right (Political Terror Scale)" using a definition by Amnesty International/ and US Department County Reports (sic) and also refers to "Respect for Human Rights."

**It's actually The Economist trying to measure the ultimately unmeasurable. The folks at The Onion would have more sense.

Edited several times as author cannot write, spell, or proofread because he is from the US. He also added a few items that he thought was relevant.

Abe says he'll stay on

as PM. According to NHK TV, Abe believes his loss was due to scandals by his cabinet and the pension disaster and had nothing to due with his education/constitution reforms. Therefor, he won't resign as his policies weren't rejected by the public. I suspect that he is right, people are most concerned about the first two and other money issues.

Japan just fine with the free ride

As much as people criticize Abe, he does have a tough job to bring Japan into reality by recognizing that Japan does need a military (it has one, but we must play word games and call it Self Defense Force) and cannot just rely on the US and recently Australia.

Under Japan's current reading of its US written constitution, it cannot engage in collective defense. For example, if Japan went to war and the US was defending it, the Japanese military could not use force to defend an American ship, or aircraft, or soldier under attack by Japan's enemy. 62% of Japanese polled see nothing wrong with this. America as Japan's mercenaries, now with Australian help. Poll here.

Maybe Abe knows what he is doing by denying WW2 crimes. Perhaps there is no other way to get Japan to come into reality. Or, it could be that people are smart enough to see that with the US getting into military messes more and more often, that they don't want to be involved at all. And why should they? Pay a few bucks to the US to give the Americans a change to spout the nonsense that it is cheaper to station US troops in Japan than the US and get a low cost defense. If the US government places no higher value on the lives of its military men and women than to send them to possibly die for the second richest country on earth and expect no reciprocity, then why should Japan?

It really should be entirely up to the Japanese. The US should not be involved anyway. I would love to see the US withdraw from Japan and tell it to solve its own problems and defend itself. American men and women should not be involved in any war defending a so-called ally that would not risk a single drop of Japanese blood to defend them.

Council on Foreign Relations article

on the basic background of Japan's military post WW2. Includes a brief description of Article 9 and remilitarization. There is nothing especially new or deep in the article, but it does give an idea of the bare basics.

....much of what is perceived internationally as Japanese "nationalism" or "militarism" might simply be political posturing. "The political class may talk in nationalistic terms, and the world press will pick up on it," he says. "But the basic point is, the population is much more moderate. The military policy, the public is really not excited about it." From CFR.org

I think this is true to some extent, but one wonders if the elites continue their posturing and continue to get their way, how long will the public remain "moderate"? I could not prove it, but my experience in talking to people over the last year or two is that they tend to be buying and repeating a lot of what Abe, Fujiwara, and others are pushing. But as the article notes, as long as the US is providing a military for Japan, most Japanese will be happy to rely on it, while complaining about the bases---in other words, have it both ways. And the US will be happy to stay forever. Once we establish a military base somewhere, we will never leave.