Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe is closing in on the supermajority he needs to put forth a national referendum allowing military force.
Constitutional ability to wage war is one of Abe’s most cherished goals.
Shinzo Abe is within reach of a parliamentary supermajority that would let him realise his dream of revising Japan’s pacifist constitution.
With elections to Japan’s upper house taking place on Sunday, opinion polls suggest the prime minister and his coalition allies are closing in on the two-thirds majority needed to put constitutional amendments to a national referendum.
Changing the postwar constitution — and ditching the war-renouncing Article 9 — is the most cherished goal of Japanese conservatives. It could transform Japan as a nation by once again permitting it to use military force.
Constitutional reform needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of Japan’s parliament before it goes to a national referendum for approval. Mr Abe already has two-thirds in the lower house. He needs to secure 162 out of 242 seats in the upper chamber as well.
Half of the upper house is elected every three years using a mixture of first-past-the-post voting in constituency seats and a national proportional representation vote.
The combination of staggered elections and proportionality make a supermajority hard to achieve, but according to a recent Nikkei poll of 33,312 voters, the ruling coalition and parties in favour of constitutional change can be confident of 147 seats and could end up with as many as 172.
“It’ll be hard to touch Article 9,” said Mr Honda [Masatoshi Honda, a professor of politics at Kinjo University], pointing out that while the Abe cabinet has an approval rating of 55 per cent, approval for a constitutional reform under Mr Abe is about 20 percentage points lower.
Is War the Goal?
When the goal is war, warmongers always seem to find a way. If war is the goal, another incident with China over the disputed Senkaku Islands could rally support.
Near Dogfight
I recently noted Japan Locked Military Radar on Chinese Fighters in Dispute Over Senkaku Islands in what was billed as a “near dogfight”.
Should a dogfight occur, all it would take to stir up war sentiment is a claim by Japan that China fired first (regardless of who fired first).
Could the US be Drawn In?
On April 28, 2015 Breitbart reported US Reaffirms Defense of Japan’s Senkaku Islands.
A day before Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe visits president Barack Obama in the White House, Secretary of State John Kerry reaffirmed that a treaty that the United States and Japan signed in 1960 requires the United States to defend the Senkaku Islands from an attack by China.
According to Kerry, “Commitment to Japan’s security remains ironclad and covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku islands.”
Commitment to Japan’s Security
Ownership in Dispute
Why is this any of our business? It is not even clear who has the best claim to ownership of the islands.
In the treaty of San Francisco [the peace treaty with Japan following WWII], Japan explicitly relinquished the control of Taiwan/Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to it. There is a disagreement between the Japanese, PRC and ROC governments as to whether the islands are implied to be part of the “islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa” in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
The Treaty of Shimonoseki ended the first Sino-Japanese War on April 17, 1895.
In articles 2 and 3 of the treaty “China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty of the Pescadores group, Formosa (Taiwan) and the eastern portion of the bay of Liaodong Peninsula together with all fortifications, arsenals and public property.”
The treaty of San Francisco superseded the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
These treaties explain the three-way claims by Japan, China, and Taiwan (formerly Formosa) over the islands.
It’s ridiculous for the US to be willing to go to war with China over ownership of rock piles in the ocean that hardly constitute “islands” when it is not even clear who has best claim to them.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Ridiculous but plausible on two fronts with China and Russia.
Fortunately the rate at which the war mongers drift us toward war is slow compared to the rate the Internet reveals their insane folly. Please tell me I’m right or we are so screwed.
Japan has reached the end of the line fiscally and monetarily.
War is the only option left.
I don’t remember when or exactly what Marc Faber said, but this quote from him fits what I believe I remember:
“There is no means of avoiding a total collapse in the West; at the first train station in 2008, the financial system went bust but didn’t die, at the next station nations will go bust (though this could take 5-10 years or less), but first they will print money as this is the most politically tenable option, and ultimately the world will go to war”
What a great opportunity for US defense contractors. A different war in another corner of the planet. No doubt there are secret meetings between the movers and shakers in Congress and the defense industry as I type. They could repeat the same game plan that worked so well in Iraq. Arm the Japanese to the hilt with the latest and greatest military weapons only to have them stolen by the insurgent Chinese. The arm the Japanese again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Hopefully it would be good for a half point rise in the GDP.
This old formula was previously achieved by T. Roosevelt, Taft, Commodore Perry, arming/militarizing Japan to genocide the Asian continent. Roosevelt christened the Imperial army as ‘Honorary Aryans’.
Given Japan’s demographics, those sent to fight the Chinese this time, will be the same guys who fought them during WW2 🙂
The first rule of fighting wars, is to have soldiers. A bunch of Asimos pushing wheelchair bound octogenarians into battle, don’t really count.
Drones can substitute for soldiers…but even if Japan could make a really good drone and launch thousands, China could make a billion OK ones and take out any drone carriers and then mount attacks on Japan.
Maybe they could use robots instead.
He (Abe), has been drifting toward war after Japan was devastated by the earthquake at Fukushima. I find it very strange that prior to Fukushima he was not so inclined, and was talking w Russia. Those talks were not appreciated by a certain group of neocons. They sent him a message w Fukushima. I find it equally strange that the “people” who Japan contracted with to control the computerized cooling of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima was Israel, and they left the plant two days before the earthquake. A strange set of events indeed.,
Please list your sources on the Israeli connection. I am intrigued.
There is a claim that Japan relinquished control of the islands to the United States, not China, and some have also claimed that Taiwan should sue for statehood or at least the protection of Constitutional rights. http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35360/
If you don’t want a Sino-Japanese war, assert that claim and watch heads explode. The claim is, legally, far stronger than the one China makes over the South China Sea.
This makes no sense. Japan is a wealthy country, a trade surplus, current account surplus and massive offshore investments.
Also no internal racial conflicts like so many ( dare to say all ) other western countries.
I would have thought that war would be the last thing that Japan wants or needs.
Someone help me out here
Perhaps the American puppetmasters want it.
Yes, indeed, perhaps it is: http://bit.ly/29HqfqP
My understanding is that the main purpose of Abe pushing for the constitutional referendum is because of the militaristic threat China has become nowadays with their continuing enforcements of their military and their aggressiveness toward their surrounding areas (South China Sea, anyone?). As for the Senkaku Islands, these islands are under Japanese rule ever since the entie Okinawa archipelago returned under Japan jurisdiction back in 1972, and if there is indeed tension rising regarding these islands recently, it is basically caused by the Chinese vessels which continuously approach and enter territorial waters, thus trying to change the status quo. Most of the Japanese understand that the current system since World War II made their country thrive, and I’m positive Japan will not make the same mistake of lingering into another war with China (Unless, of course, China shoots first).
Why does China want the islands. It too is on a path to riches and doesn’t need war. I would suggest they are worried about the US whose society maybe be crumbling rapidly, and may resort to a conflict to distract the people.
makes me think about how the the Govt has used its military to protect its deficit spending version of free market capitalism
Obama sat by stone facedly as Shinzo Abe read him the riot act over a murder of an Okinawan woman allegedly killed by an American. This is a country that will lock you up for using words like “radiation” “leakage” or even the word “exposure” and the Fukoshima power plant is strictly forbidden to even be mentioned. This is give, six, seven years on from a major meltdown of spent fuel rods in one of the reactors.
What I’m saying is that denial runs deep. It’s much easier to lash out at someone else, a perceived enemy is just as guilty as an actual enemy. Of course, since Obama is our first “Pacific President” (Clinton was the first black president) he knew just how to handle the Japanese prime minister.
Not.
Maybe I’m too far out of that circuit , but I don’t sense any wider Japanese hostile intent either . Quite another thing would be some kind of wish to build an effective and independent defensive ability , and even that seems a minority view . Anything more than a defensive ability has little point given that China has far superior capacity that Japan by itself will not match.
If we extend all of this to the table of stalled diplomatic negotiation over ownership of islands , I suppose it could be a ‘needed’ statement that Japan is willing and able to defend that territory by itself … not likely any other country will step in, and China is permanent member of the UN security council, hence holds veto to UN action .
Bit of a stupid circumstance having two countries thinking the same territory is their’s .
The overwheling majority of Japanese want nothing to do with war. Abe has been doing his best to bide his Khazarian mafia puppetmasters bidding setting up a showdown with China. It’s stupid. Neither can win. Only the people will lose.
You can take Man out of the animal world but you can’t take the animal world out of Man.
Fatal flaw Mother Nature, fatal flaw.
Much like the Taiwan Straits crisis in the 1950s and 1960s, this is about a couple of rock piles — but its really about geopolitical influence.
No one cares about those rocks (none of the three countries has built anything on them). The countries care about their stature in the world — Taiwan wants to be its own country, Japan wants to remain Asia’s dominant power, and China wants to be on par with the US.
Its not about rocks. Its about ego
China knows Obama would never go to war over these Islands, even if he drew a line in the water. They don’t know what the next president would do. So China will take the islands before November.
Japan was content to stay isolationist, until Perry’s ships convinced them that without natural resources, defense in the modern era was impossible. WWII was all about trying to obtain natural resources. There is oil by the Senkaku Islands, as well as fish.
Mike, I would argue that Japan doesn’t need them as they have made their own natural resources via 9 trillion $ of offshore investment.
Shrinking population results in more of that pie for all. Shrinking population also results is less imports of food and energy. Perfect.
Similarly, population growth doesn’t work for countries like Australia. They won’t export any more natural resources due to greater population. But they will import more of everything as they manufacture nothing.
Selective immigration is great for Singapore, as expats generally earn foreign income ( exports ) and don’t consume any natural resources ( again, the countries foreign assets )
Japan will be fine. Although the crazy Politicians will determine the value of a yen.
I don’t see fish or oil as sufficient motivation. Japan can get all the fish and oil it needs, and pay for it with its export income. I am not sure it makes much difference who catches the fish or who drills the oil. Likely to be multinational companies involved putting up money for oil drilling; room for both Japanese and Chinese companies in these oil drilling consortiums. If Japan was really concerned about oil, then it could immediately halve its oil bills by starting up its nuclear energy production again.
Does the nationality of the fisherman matter to the fish buyer? Last time you ate fish from a store or a restaurant, did you even bother to ask the nationality of the fisherman?
Japan is just a pawn on the USA War Party chessboard, and is being moved closer to Chinese territory to provide a pretext for an expanded USA military presence (e.g. new larger bomber airbase in Okinawa). These rocks are just a useful pretext, food for the mass media propaganda machine to set the battle scene: China bad, wants Japanese Pacific Ocean islands. If not that, then some other pretext would have to be invented to serve the USA War Party grandiose goals of world hegemony. If not these rocky islands, then perhaps a version of “Remember the Maine,” the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, Hilary’s Libya nonsense (lies).
Japan’s constitution change is not that of a truly independent country, though it has some strong supporters in Japan. The USA defeated Japan in WW II and still makes its dominance clear via a continued strategic military occupation. Japan is the subservient party, in this instance being mobilized to serve the USA War Party on the frontlines against China now and perhaps also Russia later (also some disputed territories).
It’s their part pf the TPP agreement. More of Obama’s evil corporate plan.
Who controls the ‘USA war party’? The USA and its army is only the big stick. Something much more evil wields it.
China needs a diversion from the collapse of their credit system and trade. Beating the tom toms is such a diversion. Unfortunately the Chinese don’t make war any better than they make plaster wall board. In recent history China lost to Japan, Korea, Russia, Viet Nam, India, USA. Harassing the Japanese is a poor choice of adversaries.
Whatever happened to Quemoy and Matsu (two rocks that were the subject of much sabre rattling by Red China and Taiwan in 1960,)?
The United States is already on the Korean Penninsula with an entire Army so the answer is “we”ve been drawn into this War since 1950.” So this is a silly question as of course we all should already know the answer. What is the relationship between Great Britain and Germany prior to World Wars 1 and 2? You will find striking similarities between Japan as Great Britain and China as Germany imho.
So far the United States and 26 Nations from around the world have coordinated their Navies to guarantee safe passage through the South China Sea of all resources, food, fishermen, etc. That includes China and Japan.
“Why is this any of our business?”
That is a good question. George Washington said not to become entangled. He was right.
The moment mainland China or Russian soil is bombed, new York or LA will see a few non nuclear cruise missles dropped on them. Do not think the mainland US will be spared in any war with either of them.
“When the goal is war, warmongers always seem to find a way.”
1400 mayors spoke out against drumming up a war against Russia.
NKorea is a direct threat that has been clearly escalating by testing long range missiles.
Good parrot. Was that a cut and paste from some MSM article?
As many have noted, the Japanese people as a whole have little to gain (perhaps nothing) and much to lose in a war with China, or any war for that matter. I don’t think even Abe himself wants it. But some powerful people do. Russia and China. Two great obstacles to world domination. Why has there been war in the Crimea again and again since “into the valley of death rode the six hundred”. Why was it that, in the original Sherlock Holmes stories, Dr. Watson had seen active service in Afghanistan, and just under130 years later when the BBC made a r21st century remake with Benedict Cumberbatch, there was no need to change where the modern Dr. Watson had seen active service? I’m talking history, not literature.
Relevant links:
http://bit.ly/29HqfqP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_in_Pink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_in_Scarlet
http://bit.ly/29vz05d