“Judicial Suicide”

When I initially read the transcript of the opening statements of Nakajima-san and the 15 women, I could not understand how the court could possibly deny their claim of unconstitutionality. Article 9 cannot be more clear:

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.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

 After all, sending Japanese troops to Iraq is precisely using force as a means of settling international disputes. So I was curious how the government could have anything remotely resembling a defense. In the public talk, however, Nakajima-san mentioned that the courts cannot overturn anything if there is no injury involved. I find that incredibly unsettling, so say the least. This places the judicial branch of the government on an inferior level in comparison to the other branches, because with limited judicial review, the Diet and Cabinet have barely any accountability.

As if that weren’t frustrating enough by itself, Article 98 of the Japanese Constitution makes the court’s inability to act in such cases unconstitutional in itself. It states,

This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government, or part thereof, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall have legal force or validity.

In other words, the court must rule in favor of Nakajima-san and the 15 women, regardless of their physical harm, because not doing so is unconstitutional.

peace lawsuits

Peace lawsuits -tomoko seto

In Nakajima san’s talk, she mentioned the term “heiwa sosho-,” or peace lawsuits. Just as other guests we have had for this class so far, Nakajima san also introduced me to a new shape of activism: The peace lawsuits. The term sounded new to me, but Nakajima san said this genre of lawsuits has the history longer than a decade. If the lawsuits can be construed as one means to express opposition to the government making decisions against the constitution, then I think that Nakajima san’s case was a clever strategy to limit the plaintiffs to women. By emphasizing the woman-ness of the plaintiffs and attorneys, the “group of 15 women” must have stood out among other groups who were working on the peace lawsuits at the same time. Nakajima san’s conscious performance to show the pictures in front of the judge also suggests that lawsuits can be used as a demonstration. Although it may not help win the case, eye-catching acts in the court could result in more publicity, which must be the part of the aim of the peace lawsuits.

Just as the cases of other activists that we have encountered so far, it surely is difficult to disseminate their message to the general public. Still, the media reaction to the Nakajima san’s lawsuits was by no means non-existent. I learned that just as various means such as demonstrating in the street, signing the petition, boycotting specific products, etc., suing a larger institution can be counted as one means of protest. And perhaps not only for the peace issue, but for many other issues such as nuclear power plants or human rights for the working poor, too, lawsuits against the government or corporation can be used. Nakajima san stated that the 15 women gathered rather quickly, and that many of them had been active in other movements. The question may be how accessible and affordable it would be for various people (not only women, to be sure) to participate in this type of activism, but I think it is nice to know that there are several options to choose when someone wants to do something in terms of protest.

Nakajima-san’s inclusivity

After Nakajima-san’s in-class talk on her own social movement history last Tuesday, I felt reassured of feminism in Japan. Her new approach to women’s lib, or “middle-aged lib,” appealed to me immensely. She seemed to have pinpointed an aspect of women’s lib I had always questioned. In general, feminist and women’s lib movements (though perhaps I should address each wave separately) always impressed me as powerful and inspirational, but also as somehow disconnected from the women around me and the girls with whom I grew up.

Where do we go from here?

Ms. Nakajima’s visit was indeed very thought-provoking, to say the very least. For me, I can’t imagine the excitement and hope that must have swept Ms. Nakajima’s generation that they would be able to foster a generation free of war, as guaranteed by Article 9 of the new Constitution. Have contemporary citizens and politicians forgotten the ideals of peace and mutual understanding that Article 9 has come to represent?

Apart from a few radical voices that somehow manage to get airtime in the media, I am unsure whether we can label those who favor revising Article 9 as blood-thirsty warmongers who will use Japan’s officially recognized military force as an excuse to repeat past transgressions (of course, Ms. Nakajima herself said nothing along these lines, but such people have been portrayed in this way). Ms. Nakajima brought up the fact that there has been pressure from the US to revise Article 9. For the United States, this may be in its best interests, so of course it would advocate for revision of Article 9. The US feels that Japan is the most qualified nation to maintain regional security. Furthermore, while it is true that Japan’s SDF is the second largest military force in the world, I would also like to add that Japan has the second-largest economy in the world. Indeed, the illustration of guns, warships, and cannons being melted down to create trains and tractors is a powerful statement. However, according to the CIA World Factbook, as of 2006, Japanese military expenditure was estimated to be 0.9% of GDP. I would also like to say that China spends 4.3% of its GDP on military spending and North Korea’s military expenditure is estimated to range from 23-40% of GDP (what does this say about a country’s priorities in a country where people are dying from famine – who’s militaristic now?). While Japan spends alot on its military, the fact of the matter is that it can afford to. Japan has already developed a relatively strong infrastructure to maintain a robust economy. My point is that if the US decides to allow regional actors to play a larger role in maintaining East Asian security, Japan might be the best choice for a responsible and modernized military force in the region (what are the choices again? Russia? The PRC? The DPRK? South Korea? Taiwan?).

In talking with Ms. Nakajima, I learned that she is in favor of reducing the SDF and relying on peace treaties and cooperation instead of military force. I think that this is very admirable and should be something to which all nations should aspire – peace, cooperation, unity, etc. However, how do we make this happen? Surely, we could say that we renounce all war and elect pro-peace politicians and we’re on our way to a better world. However, with China’s longstanding threat of invading Taiwan and a nuclear Korean peninsula, can we realistically trust other countries to adhere to treaties? Even if China and North Korea are just talking big and don’t plan to do anything, the perceived threat still exists. Does Japan want to take that chance? In a sense, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they do maintain a military in case of attack, the government comes under criticism for being too aggressive. If the government scraps the SDF and there is an attack on Japanese soil, then they come under attack for being incompetent, ill-prepared, and maybe even be criticized for being too dependent on the American security umbrella (which begs another question of whether the US would get involved during a time like this in US military policy).

Part of the problem lies in allowing oneself to be vulnerable to other nations. No nation wants to let its guard down to be invaded by other nations who did decide to keep their military forces. Even neutral Switzerland has a military. It may be regrettable, but this is something that every country realistically has to consider for its survival. Honestly, diplomacy can only go so far; no matter how much a country wants to cooperate, if the other side refuses to cooperate, what can a country do? I call your attention to the Six-Party Talks as an example.

While I feel that Japan is very strong in its soft power, as a sovereign nation in a particularly volatile region, it feels it must maintain its hard power. Perhaps the SDF as is will be a good way for Japan to reconcile itself with the right to renounce war with the defense necessary to exist in the East Asia region. However, practically speaking, to completely get rid of the SDF may be too radical of an idea.

As a student of international relations, I believe that keeping the SDF force is an ideal way for Japan to reconcile self-defense and protecting its sovereignty in the postwar era. As for the revision of Article 9, I can see the argument on both sides, but I venture to say that the actual outcome either way will not be as catastrophic as opponents paint it to be.