Is Japan Walking on the Old Path of Militarism?
One of the most important issues in East Asia in 2015 was the military legislation of Japan. This bill gave Japan the power to defend its allies in a war. This year is the 70th year of the end of the World War II. Japan committed huge crimes against Asian people. Asian states, such as China and both North and South Korea, opposed and criticized the military legislation. Asian states fear that Japan will walk on the old path of Fascism and Militarism. However, evidence shows that the situation today is much different than the situation 80 years ago. Today, Militarism is impossible for Japan because of the good civil-military relationship and the current East Asia situation.
Civil-Military relationship
The biggest push factors of Japanese Militarism in the 1930s was the unlimited power of the military, especially the power of lower ranking field officials. These field officials, unlike politicians and higher level military officials, had direct access to soldiers. Lots of times, they were independent of the decisions from Tokyo. It caused the distorted civil-military relationship and led to militarism.
In 1928, Huanggutun incident occur. The warlord of Manchuria, Zhang Zuolin, was murdered by Japanese Kwantung Army officials through bombing. The incident occurred because Zhang failed to satisfy the demands of privileges by Japanese. The Kwantung Army of Japan decided to launch a military invasion and occupy Manchuria. However, the Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi strongly opposed the plan because of its high risk. The Kwantung Army decided to assassinate Zhang without the consent and approval from Tokyo. They planned to create chaos in Manchuria through the assassination and took it over. The Staff of Kwantung Army, Colonel Komoto Daisaku planned the assassination. The assassination was conducted successfully on June 4, 1928. Prime Minister Tanaka strongly opposed the assassination and resigned afterward. However, chaos didn’t happen, Zhang Zuolin’s son, Zhang Xueliang, successfully handled the situation and Japan didn’t have the chance to take over Manchuria. The planner, Colonel Komoto was hardly punished, thus, more people followed him.
In 1931, Japanese Kwantung Army planned their 2nd attempt on taking over Manchuria. On September 18, 1931, Kwantung Army destroyed a small section of South Manchuria Railroad and accused Chinese troop of it. The Kwantung Army attacked and occupied the entire Manchuria within couple months. This Mukden Incident was planned by Kenji Doihara, Kanji Ishiwara and Seshiro Itagaki, three colonels from the Kwantung Army without any consent from Tokyo. This event decreased the power of Japanese Prime Minister and parliament over military significantly. The field military officials became independent from government.
The February 26 incident and May 15 incident further reduced the power of parliament over the military. In these two incidents, young military officials planned to attack the Japanese prime ministers. The Prime Minister during these two incidents, Inukai Tsuyoshi and Okada Keisuke, supported peaceful relationship with China. They were viewed as barriers over Japan’s total conquest of China. During these two incidents, young military officials tried to assassinate Inukai Tsuyoshi and Okada Keisuke in order to remove the barriers. Prime Minister Inukai was killed but Prime Minister Okada survived. After these events, the civil rule was largely damaged and military officials took control the government. The military officials pushed for China’s conquest, thus led Japanese into militarism.
The previous example shows that the militarism in Japan was pushed by Japanese military officers. Those were lower ranking officers. They didn’t understand the broader picture of domestic and international political situation. Thus, they neither considered the possible negative outcomes of their extreme actions nor had a blueprint to achieve their goal. These military officers pushed for war against China despite the opposition of parliament. They later assassinated Prime Minister and allowed the military to control the government. The militarism in Japan eventually led Japan to the disastrous ending. Today, Japan has one of the best democracy systems in the world. The civil-military relationship in Japan was similar to Western states. The officials of the Self-Defense Force are not allowed to interfere with the political decision-making process. The civil-military relationship in Japan shuts the door of militarism in the domestic level.
Japan in East Asia
In the 1930s, all the capitalist states were recovering from the Great Depression. The United States practiced the Isolation. The France and Britain, two European colonial power, focused on the threats from the Soviet Union, later Nazi Germany as well, instead of Far East. This left a huge power vacuum in East Asia to Japan. In East Asia, China was the only independent state, but China was weak; it was split not only between warlords but also between Nationalists and Communists. Japan, with superior power, had the golden opportunity to expand in Asia and achieve hegemony.
However, today the situation was different. There is no power vacuum due to China’s expansion and America’s Return to Asia policy. Japan also doesn’t have a military advantage. China has one of the strongest military force in the world, includes nuclear weapons. Korea also has military power comparable to Japan. Jane’s Information Group ranked Japan’s military power as number 9 around the world; however, China is number 3 and Korea is number 7. Without power vacuum and superior military power, Japan is unable to expand in Asia with military power, thus, militarism becomes impossible.
It is important to notice the existence of the US military in Japan. Although U.S supported Japan’s re-militarization, it is because U.S wants to use Japan to deter the expansion of China, it is not because the US supports the expansion and militarism of Japan. In fact, the US has been guarding Japan since the 1970s. President Nixon once said that US military in Japan not only could contain communism but also could deter Japan’s potential challenge the United States in the Western Pacific. The existence of the United States would also shut the door of Japanese militarism.
Conclusion
From the analysis above, Japan is not going on the old path of militarism. The healthy civil-military relationship stopped the emergence of militarism at the domestic level. The East Asia situation also shuts the door for militarism. The National Security Bill was an attempt to restore Japan’s normal-state status instead of the restoration of militarism. Japan’s emergence as responsible major power further promotes the peace of East Asia.
