The White Peril 白禍

I'm glad Reuters is pointing this out: The deadline before Shosei Koda, the abducted Japanese citizen, was supposed to be murdered by his kidnappers has passed. The situation is agonizing, and I hope he's released safely. But not all the Japanese are directing all their outrage at the government:

The hostage crisis poses a challenge to Koizumi, who is a close ally of President Bush and sent troops to Iraq despite strong public opposition.

But with many Japanese blaming Koda for putting himself at risk, political fallout might be limited, analysts said.

Exhausted members of Koda's family begged for the life of a young man who they said had no ties to Japan's military, no political agenda and was not in search of personal gain.

"He is just a warm-hearted person who wanted to see what he could do for peace and help the people of Iraq," Koda's brother, Maki, told a news conference.

By all accounts, Koda was an easy-going, bum-around type--there are a lot of them who wander around Southeast Asia. I don't think it's heartlessly blaming the victim to point out that wandering into Iraq from Jordan as an unaffiliated civilian was an extremely bad idea. People seem to be forgoing the opportunity to vent their opposition to Koizumi's close ties to Bush, which is nice to see. (I'm not saying people who disagree with Japan's non-combat participation in the Iraq reconstruction should refrain from criticizing it, only that not acknowledging the degree to which Koda imperiled himself would be dishonest.)

Added at 11:15, 30 October: They think they've found Koda's body. No confirmation yet, though.

Added at 11:15, 31 October: NHK has just confirmed that Koda's body was found in Iraq, and I assume the story's already...yes, on Reuters. The fingerprints match.

The LDP's Research Commission on the Constitution has reached a conclusion about how to deal with the dubious constitutionality of using the SDF in international conflicts: change the constitution:

The members of the Liberal Democratic Party's Research Commission on the Constitution agreed Friday to propose revising the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Constitution to state that the nation possesses military forces.

During the discussion of an outline of the party's draft amendments to the Constitution, the commission, chaired by Okiharu Yasuoka, also agreed to expand the list of duties fulfilled by the Self-Defense Forces to include national defense and international cooperation.

The party is set to compile the outline by the end of the year.

During the discussion conducted at the party headquarters in Tokyo, most of the members insisted that the constitutionality of the SDF should be clarified by stipulating that the nation has military potential.

Most of the members said it was not necessary to stipulate in the Constitution the nation's right of collective self-defense, citing that few countries specify such a right in their constitutions. Under the right of collective self-defense, a nation may consider an attack against its allies as one against itself and may launch counterattacks against an aggressor that has attacked an ally.

I'm assuming that part about changing the wording of Article 9 means that there would be an amendment. I'm certainly no constitutional law scholar, but I don't think the Diet can just go in with a red pen and change phrases without leaving a record at the end of the document. Have to ask a lawyer friend.

Prime Minister Koizumi was apparently talking about possibly proceeding without a constitutional amendment (the Asahi article is very vaguely worded, and I never found the original Japanese versions). Naturally, the usual "51st state" fears have also been raised:

Pointing out that the United States has forces stationed worldwide, former Home Affairs Minister Takeshi Noda said Japan would be obliged to follow the United States anywhere in the world if some form of restriction [on the type of collective self-defense the SDF can participate in without being regarded as violating the non-aggression pledge in Article 9] was not stipulated.

Given that the SDF has been waddling, swimming, and quacking like a military for years now--and given that Japan has the DPRK and the PRC to worry about as much as or more than the US--officially acknowledging that it has a military seems to me to be the sensible thing to do. It would be sensible even if Japan weren't angling for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The world is both different (Japan is super-rich, no longer a devastated post-war mess) and the same (resentment over Japan's conduct during its occupation of Asia is kept raw by visits to the Yasukuni Shrine and the cagey wording of apologies on the part of Japanese politicians) compared to fifty years ago in ways that make the genteel fiction that the SDF is a glorified police force dangerous to maintain.

Japan will be ensconced as a non-permanent member of the UNSC for another two-year term (the last one was five years ago). This should help with its bid for permanent membership, especially since Kofi Annan is supposedly kicking around ideas for major reform in 2005. My favorite part of the article was the end:

There is a view in the government that Japan's nonpermanent membership of the Security Council will make it easier for the country to gather intelligence.

On the other hand, Japan's status as a nonpermanent member means the country will come under pressure to make difficult decisions on a range of issues.

Damn and blast those difficult decisions on a range of issues! They'll be the death of us all yet. In case you're wondering whether the Yomiuri is referring to, you know, anything in particular, the Taipei Times is a little less vague. On the other side of the Formosa Strait, The People's Daily slyly but pointedly compares Japan's and Germany's respective willingness to reckon with their WWII behavior. Guess--just guess--who comes out looking better.

The issues surrounding Japan's bid for permanent membership haven't really shifted much in the last several months, from what I can tell. Japan, China, and the Koreas are still dancing around each other, and the interpretation of Article 9 of the constitution is still subject to debate, though we're not hearing much about it at the moment. Two years is a long time in diplomatic terms, though; there's plenty of time for Japan, China, the Koreas, and the US to nettle each other in unpredictable ways. Fun for the whole North Pacific family!

Oh, and this isn't exactly the same topic, but it's related: Nathan posted again the other day about what he sees as distortions in Americans' views of the PRC. I'm not convinced by everything he says, but I am convinced by his overall point that it's as bad to treat China as if it were still under Mao as it is to figure its economic liberalization has made its past sins all better.