Realpolitik Versus Principled Politics: Nitobe, Shidehara, Shirasu and the Hollowing out of the Japanese Peace Constitution

Abstract

It is argued that the current debate surrounding the revision of article 9 of the Japanese peace constitution has shifted from a debate on non-violent ideals and principles rooted in the pacifism of Shidehara, spiritual father of article 9, to a more pragmatic logic of military action and Realpolitik which lacks intellectual depth, foresight and historical awareness. The article questions the inherent logic that tries to give a purpose to the military and gain international reputation by reinterpreting article 9 indiscriminately. Since 2004, the overseas dispatch of SDF forces into the Iraq combat zone has split the nation more than ever and a national consensus on what article 9 should stand for is further threatened by Government attempts to extend the application of article 9 to military activities outside Japan under the banner of collective defense. Ahead of the 2009 general election for the Lower House opposition and ruling parties have apparently agreed that time has come to review the text of article 9 for the first time after the war based on the premises of Realpolitik. Article 9 in its current wording still represents a very cherished core principle to the nation as a whole despite the military buildup and despite the tacit acceptance of the SDF and of the right to limited self-defense. The current popular mood against collective self-defense, against the overseas deployment of SDF, against the unequitable US-Japan Security Treaty and against nuclear weapons- termed “negative pacifism”- differs from the voluntarist security policies in the election platforms of the LDP and DPJ. Ordinary citizens in and outside Japan have challenged the political elite by teaming up to preach the peaceful spirit of article 9 to the world. It is asserted that the intended revision of article 9 has caused lasting changes in civic political grass-root culture.