Prime Minister Abe's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), along with its coalition party, has won the majority in the upper house of parliament on July 21st election, securing a total of 135 seats in the 242-member chamber. Having secured the majority both in the upper and lower houses of the Diet, Mr. Abe can now move forward his plans to restore Japan, effectively and swiftly.
Immediately after the appointment as the prime minister in December 2012, Mr. Abe launched "Abenomics", a three-part plan of monetary loosening, fiscal stimulus and pro-growth reforms. The plan aims at boosting prices and ending long-term deflation, to achieve robust growth.
In the first quarter of 2013, Japan's economy has already grown at 3.5%, and a survey conducted by Nikkei Newspaper in April has indicated 74% of people positively appreciating the Abenomics. Many in the survey have said that "Depreciation of yen is contributing to economic recovery", "The speed and ability in implementation is clearly different from the previous administration (i.e. DPJ)". The Economist back in May also wrote about Abenomics with high hope ("Abe's master plan").
The Economist, however, like many other Western media, is not strong on objective understanding of the historical issues surrounding Japan. In the same article, it mentions:
"The danger abroad is that he (Mr. Abe) takes too hard a line, confusing national pride with a destructive and backward-looking nationalism. He belongs to a minority that has come to see Japan's post-war tutelage under America as a humiliation."
The article mentions of Mr. Abe "stirring up ill will with China and South Korea" by allowing his deputy to visit Yasukuni shrine, by risking regional rivalry by making revisions in the constitution, etc. This kind of view somewhat resembles the reaction of Chinese and South Korean TVs today, who label Mr. Abe as risky right-wing who want to go back to "imperialism".
I can comment on each point above, but with the text getting longer, I will just mention the constitution issue here.
The current constitution of Japan was made by Americans in one week immediately after the end of WWII, and came into effect in 1947. Its article 9 states that Japan forever renounces war, and land, sea, and air forces will never be maintained. The communists and leftists in Japan adamantly believe that, without this constitution, Japan will be again a "dangerous" country, thus strongly refusing its revision. (China and Korea hold the same line).
But isn't that kind of absurd? Japan has been the most peaceful and stable democracy in the entire world since the war, and having its national military force would not suddenly change that position.
Second, having the proper military force is only normal for a sovereign state - it can defend the country, deter conflicts, and maintain international peace. Any countries have it. Why should only American soldiers bleed to protect Japan when something happens, while Japan doesn't do anything by holding the article 9 ? Communists and leftists would say "we should solve problems only by talking", but that is unfortunately too naive. Having a proper military force can greatly change the political negotiation and action.
Third, with China vigorously strengthening its military power and exercising it in an undemocratic manner and North Korea shooting ballistic missiles once in a while in the neighborhood, being defenseless can be fatal and irresponsible as a state.
A journalist from Asahi newspaper was saying earlier on TV, "If Japan changes its constitution, it will be laughed at by other countries since it's the international norm not to change the constitution". That's not true. So many countries have changed their constitution so many times: after the WWII, US revised its constitution 6 times, France 27 times, and Germany 58 times. If the constitution doesn't fit the current reality, then obviously, it should be changed - this is especially so when the constitution is imposed by somebody else.
No comments:
Post a Comment