Japan�s Resurgence under Shinzo Abe: Understanding the Significance of a New Japan

Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe has worked proactively since his return to power in December 2012, to ensure that his homeland assumes a more prominent role in the Asia-Pacific. While the trauma of World War II remains vivid, today both extra-regional and regional stakeholders are keen to create and uphold a multilateral balance of power. This balance is essential for guaranteeing uninterrupted flow of maritime trade, marine scientific research and resource exploration in international waters of the Asia-Pacific. These as well as the presence of military naval vessels of numerous nations are the indicators of a truly multilateral maritime space. The countries of the Asia-Pacific are heavily maritime dependent. However the environs of Sea of Japan, East China Sea and South China Sea remain rife with tensions emanating from disputed territories and an overall discomposure with proximity.

For better or worse Abe is keen for Japan to remove its Pacifist straightjacket and avail what is the normal prerogative of all other countries. He has courted controversy for his nationalistic sentiments, his visits and offerings to Yasukuni Shrine, commentary on comfort women and most significantly the reinterpretation of Japan’s 1947 Constitution. The reinterpretation has permitted Japan to come to the military aid of allies under attack. This is a change that has been welcomed by the US as it would take some of the pressure off, in the case of actual conflict and aids its implicit agenda of maintaining a favourable balance of power in the Asia-Pacific.

However, despite re-orienting a majority of US naval fleet towards the Asia–Pacific in 2012, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta issued a general dictum to the region’s countries that the US cannot come sweeping in to assist every time tensions erupt and that countries in the region should learn to resolve matters on their own. In the meantime the US offers military training exercises to Japan such as the one that took place in Hawaii in July 2014 which focuses upon amphibious landing and beach storming capabilities. They are intended possibly to make Japan more self-reliant for a contingency in the disputed Senkaku-Diaoyu islands of the South China Sea. For these reasons it is useful for China to drum up historical angst and up-sell the threat of a militarily resurgent Japan, just as it serves USA’s purpose to do the same about China’s rise. Thus creating unease makes the case for both major world powers to continue playing a dominant role in the Asia-Pacific.

With regards to Japan, a central question pertains to its identity and value system. The aftermath of Second World War, brought forth two strands of identity. One avatar is proud, nationalistic and with a record for brutality. Its expression has been muted, underground but ever-present. The second avatar is a Pacifist identity assumed in the wake of the carnage of Second World War. Today, Pacifism is sacrosanct for Japanese society. This avatar facilitated healing domestically for Japanese people and allowed the country to extend itself into the world as an ace economic power. Indeed, Japan managed to remain the world’s second largest economy till 2011, when China usurped the spot and Japanese resurgence was further de-railed by the triple disasters. Much of the reservations about the ‘New Japan’ which is ready to shake off the inertia of Pacifism emanates from Northeast Asia and indeed pertains to the ‘Old Japan’. Understandably, vivid memories of historically unprecedented suffering during Second World War extend into mistrust today. This mistrust fuels the frequent contestations on the high seas between Chinese and Japanese fishing trawlers and naval vessels.

Japan along with its primary ally USA is keen to create a multilateral environment in the Asia-Pacific through the deepening of partnerships with countries like India, Philippines and Myanmar. This is rightfully viewed by China as an attempt to counterbalance its influence. However, China’s misgivings are bound to erupt time and again as it is also natural for countries to diversify their foreign relations regionally in what is the Asian Century. The region remains anxious about China’s rise despite assurances of its peacefulness. China is understood as revisionist or a non-status quo power. Arguably this is due to precedents such as the military takeover of Paracel islands contested with Vietnam, the inundation of Chinese military in the Tibet Autonomous region, flag marches of the PLA in the Indian side of the Ladakh border etc. All these behaviours indicate a proactive opportunism when it comes to territories on its periphery. The Japan-India partnership is particularly noteworthy with regards to the containments of China’s monopolising tendencies. This is a partnership of two Asian democracies and ancient civilisations. There is mutual empathy for security concerns both share on their national frontiers with China. Thus, there is much significance in the Memorandums of Cooperation and Exchanges on Defence that have been signed between the two, during PM Modi’s recent (2014) five day visit to Japan.

Looking ahead, is Japan’s perceived lack of repentance for the suffering it inflicted, a bad omen for future of stability and peace in the Asia-Pacific? It is in poor taste. Clearly a more conciliatory attitude would have helped put the ghosts of a troubled past to rest, which still loom seventy years on. However, it is also not fair to expect Japanese people to disregard all their ancestors while not honouring those who committed atrocities during the Second World War. It is unreasonable to expect a society to perpetually loathe itself to appease the neighbour’s sensibilities. If one extreme avatar exists so will its polar opposite. Therefore a more reasonable approach or a middle path shall prove healthier wherein Japan is not forever a ‘special case’ and indefinitely bound to pacifism. It should be allowed all the basic rights that are normal for all other countries in the international community. These include developing a good self defence capability and having the discretion to use the same. Japan’s honing of this ability and justifying the legality of coming to the aid of an ally is undeniably a signal to China that for all practical purposes, both Japan and the US are equipped and ready for a contingency. China’s military build up is purported to be phenomenal through its defence industrial clusters yet as apprehensive as the world may be, the quality of Chinese maritime defence arsenal remains an opaque matter.

Till the time maritime territorial disputes persist, the regional environment, be it monopolised or multilateral, shall remain restive and volatile. The amount of patrolling and monitoring of the maritime space by military naval vessels shall indicate the level of insecurity at any given time. On the other hand, one can also take the view that we are entering a new phase of geopolitics in the Asia-Pacific wherein everyone is being thrust responsibility. China to ensure that its growth is peaceful, US to ensure a multilateral apace, Japan to come to the aid of allies, while others such as India, Philippines, Vietnam and Myanmar are countries that shall put their respective weights behind an optimal geopolitical balance for the Asia-Pacific. While it remains to be seen how long it will take for mutual acceptance to entrench itself in the region, the proactive manoeuvrings of the New Japan under Shinzo Abe, shall spearhead the Asia-Pacific’s move towards multilateralism.