by Shoaib Bajwa, UK
I recently had a chance to travel within Japan in a company of diversified individuals and was struck by the pride that they have in their country, and their desire to see it take up a new role on the global stage. But for many Japanese people, rethinking the post-war approach to foreign policy is a highly contentious issue – after all Imperial Japan still casts a long shadow. Indeed, since the Second World War Japan has been committed to renouncing warfare. The question is whether it can rethink its approach to foreign policy – as I believe it must – playing a more active role in dispute resolution and peace-brokering without reneging on the principles of pacifism that many Japanese people hold close. It is difficult balance to strike but changes it its international outlook do not necessarily have to result in a rejection of post-war Japanese national identity.
Whilst in Japan I was able to travel to Hiroshima to visit the Peace Memorial Museum and Bomb Dome – symbols of the destruction of life at the end of the war, and the rejection of violence of the Japanese people. I was deeply affected by what I saw, but grateful of the chance to find out more about city that I had learnt so much about as a young child. I was struck by the normality of Hiroshima – today it is like any other modern Japanese city – but also impressed by the presence of the next generation at the museums and memorials. In the same way that it is vital to teach Japan’s children about its past, it is also vital that Japan shares its knowledge with the world, to propagate its message of institutionalised pacifism as a solution to warfare.
In the museum I witnessed five-year olds learning all about their country’s past. And just like this new generation it is vital that we all understand Japan’s complex history over the last century in order to examine how it can couple its desire for a global role without jeopardising its cultural accomplishments of the past 70 years. The Second World War had a profound effect on all of the belligerent nations. For the USA and the USSR it heralded their ascendency as the two superpowers of the second half of the twentieth century. For the UK and France, it signalled the end of empire and economic stagnation. For the Axis powers however it began a long and profound period of selfreflection and reckoning. Germany and Japan in particular were left devastated, occupied and haunted by a legacy of political repression, genocide and war crimes. It was up to each nation to attempt to reinvent itself in the post war world. In Japan, this manifested itself in a rejection of offensive war as a political tool. No longer would the corruption of Bushido (Military Nationalism) allow for empire building in South East Asia. Instead, the post-war Japanese constitution explicitly forbid belligerent war, with its 9th Article stating: “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”
This has been the status quo for many years, with Japan’s actions in the hemisphere limited by their desire to avoid conflict in favour of diplomacy. However, this self-limitation has been questioned recently by calls to overhaul or re-interpret the constitution to allow for greater overseas intervention, with Article 9 becoming a focus of the campaign. It’s a hugely divisive issue forcing Japan’s entire post-war pacifist identity into the spotlight. After all, Article 9 and Japanese political culture since 1945 are a direct result of the horrors perpetrated by the pre-war military government, the destruction and upheaval caused by the Second World War, and the Allied occupation of the country, which lasted until 1952. However, Japan does not need to abandon its principles to allow for a revised role on the world stage.
Bushido Militaristic Nationalism – the philosophy which informed the actions of the Government of Imperial Japan – resulted in the perpetration of horrendous crimes against the populations of Asia and Allied prisoners of war by the Japanese. Seventy years on the memory of these acts are still strong and rightly feature in any debate in Japan’s role in the contemporary world. However, as a modern, liberal democracy it would be entirely consistent for Japan to both reject conflict and exert its influence on the global stage via other means.
Cultural diplomacy and soft power is a path to greater understanding and integration of Japan with the global community. Although Japanese culture has seen something of a boom, particularly in the West in recent years, it could take a leaf out of the Republic of Korea’s book and actively propagate its modern culture, and open itself up to greater inclusion in the international community. Indeed, Japan’s unique position as a legally pacifist state give it the opportunity to make its mark on the world stage as a broker of peace and dispute resolution. By maintaining its mandated rejection of war, it can offer its services to the greater good, demonstrating its liberal democratic values and cementing its reputation as a force for good in the modern world. Third party arbitration in global conflicts is nothing new. Japan can position itself as the go-to authority on peaceful, fair and beneficial solutions. Its expertise in the importance of peace is hard learnt, and should not be wasted.
During my visit, I had the pleasure of meeting number of international executives and local professionals and also listened to a global leader of a global peace loving religious community that is at the forefront of promoting peace globally at a well organised reception in Tokyo. All were on the same page that the west in particular can benefit from Japan’s teachings. With the exception of Germany, the West came out of World War Two largely vindicated: its citizens’ experience of the war holds a very different symbolism to those of Japanese people. Europe and America need to learn that pacifism does not necessarily lead to domination by external states. In the modern world, attitudes such as those held by Japan can serve the dual purpose of increasing global stability and increasing economic prosperity.
Also on my recent visit to Japan I was greatly impressed by the national pride of many of the people I was lucky enough to meet, as well as their desire to contribute to global development and betterment. I cannot think of a more fitting way to do so than through becoming leaders in global arbitration and champions of peaceful resolution and co-existence. The world needs a strong and active Japan, and hemispheric stability would be greatly improved by its intervention in local disputes (of which there are no shortage). The people I met strongly felt that Japan should become a more confident voice in promoting the values enshrined in its constitution and liberal democracy outside of its borders. It now has an opportunity to do just this, without losing the defining principle of its post-war success.
Author is London based banking professional and takes a keen interest in current social and political issues. He can be reached on @shoaibkbajwa