#4: Proposal to Japan--the Nation of Peace

At the 2016 Rio Olympics, the Japanese spectators voluntarily picked up trash left in the stadium stands. What puzzled everyone else was that they did it without anyone asking them to do so. For that puzzling behavior, the world praised them.

Likewise, in the immediate aftermath of the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake which claimed more than 6 thousand lives, residents made long lines outside shuttered convenience stores to purchase food and necessities. The world watched in admiration, voicing respect for the orderly conduct, absent any looting.
 
These acts of civility and peace reflect values that the Japanese people can rightfully take pride in--values of deep commitment to harmony.
 
Yet, even Japan wasn’t always so exemplary.

In fact, just over 70 years ago, Japan stood on the oppose end of the moral specturm. Japan's commitment to harmony was troublingly faint during World War II, when it embraced Hitler and Nazi Germany as a political/military ally. What's more, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations (predecessor to today’s United Nations) after facing criticism for its invasion and occupation of Manchuria.

The Japan of that time, in many ways, resembled today’s North Korea: isolated, aggressive, and driven by unchecked nationalism. And, as we all know, that path eventually led the country into the depth of a catastrophic war. 
 
Since then, Japan has transformed.

The nuclear horrors of Hiroshima/Nagasaki left a permanent scar on the Japanese people. Out of this nightmare emerged a powerful desire for peace.

​To advocate world peace and to prevent a repeat of the horrific chapter in its history, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park was constructed at the site of the nuclear explosion. The park's vibrant message of peace resonates deeply with the visitors, stirring  moral reflection from within.
 
Nonetheless, as the bitter memories of war have gradually faded over the seven decades, there's a growing concern that Japan's commitment to peace may be eroding.
 
In fact, Abe administration quietly seeks changes to Japan's pacifist Constitution--particularly Article 9, which renounces war as a means to settle international disputes, and prohibits maintaining armed forces with war potential. 

What's deeply troubling is that, instead of addressing Article 9 directly, the administration has attempted to amend Article 96, which governs the process for constitutional amendments. The goal, obviously, is to lower the bar for changes--making it easier to eventually revise Article 9 to enable Japan to wage war again. This was widely criticized as the “back door” strategy, and thankfully it’s failed so far.
 
However, Abe administration succeeded in reinterpreting Article 9 to expand the role of Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF). In 2015, it passed legislation allowing the SDF to come to the military aid of allies under attack. Many constitutional scholars and citizens consider this move unconstitutional because the administration did so without a constitutional amendment or national referendum. Nevertheless, it was forced through the National Diet and enacted.

In these ways, Abe administration is dangerously expanding Japan’s war capacity without clear public consent.
 
But the painful truth is this: it’s the Japanese people who have enabled this trajectory by continuing to vote this administration into power.
 
Of course, there are many issues of importance in deciding for whom to vote. Viability of the alternate choices also plays into our voting decisions. Still, the fact remains that this administration, expanding war capacity behind people’s backs, has consistently received people's votes. That alone suggests a fading collective commitment to peace.
 
The Abe administration defends its actions: to "Implement all measures to prepare for the unexpected, because that deters potential aggressors."
 
But is that really true?

Let’s consider two contrasting views: 

1. If we're fully prepared to fight a war, we’re safer because war will be prevented. 
2. If we're fully prepared to fight a war, the likelihood of going to war increases.

If you’re running a country, which one of the above views would you base your national policy on?
 
If that feels a bit too abstract, consider a similar scenario in the context of running your own home:

1. If we keep heavy weapons at home, we’re safer because violence will be prevented.
2. If we keep heavy weapons at home, the likelihood of a tragic mistake increases.

Which do you agree with?
 
Regardless of the anwer, one thing is certain: If we have no preparation to fight a war, then we can't go to war--even if we're tempted.
 
This is the foundational philosophy behind Japan's post-war pacifism.

To advocate world peace and to prevent a repeat of the horrific chapter in our history--the Hiroshima Peace Memorial is a symbol for this hope. If we truly embrace this hope, then Japan's unwavering determination to never again fight another war is the most noble treasure that the Japanese people can rightfully take pride in.
 
In that spirit, I propose an ambitious but sincere path: non-cooperation with any act of war.
 
This means Japan should withdraw itself from the US nuclear umbrella and end the American military presence on its soil. How can anyone truly advocate for complete nuclear disarmament  while taking cover under them?

​Further, let the SDF focus solely on humanitarian missions, such as disaster relief during earthquakes/floods--tasks they already perform with distinction.

In essence, I propose that Japan completely disarm and demilitarize, and instead lead by example through nonviolence to advocate for world peace.
 
“How naive . . .” some may say.
 
But history tells us otherwise. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of Indian independence, freed India from the British rule through nonviolence. Martin Luther King Jr., the leader of the American Civil Rights Movement, momentously advanced the rights of African Americans through nonviolence.

Their achievments were not naive--they were revolutionary.
 
Still, skeptics may ask, “What if we're attacked? How do we defend ourselves if no weapons/military?"
 
In the devastating aftermath of World War II, this very question was raised in Japan's National Assembly. A member asked, "There's a war for invasion, and there's a war for legitimate national self-defense. Shouldn’t we only renounce the former?”

In response, then-Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida replied: “Wars often start with a so-called claim for national self-defense. Therefore, allowing self-defense will end up inadvertently inducing wars.”
 
We will never again fight another war. Such strong determination was undeniably present in post-war Japan. A complete renunciation--it was a brave decision rooted in bitter experience.
 
Today, when conflicts arise, let us resolve them through the United Nations. Yes, diplomacy takes time--but so does war.
 
Yes, it's risky to disarm and demilitarize--but history proves that it's even more risky and destructive to fight wars.

​Wars leave behind a legacy of extreme hatred and injustice. This hatred can span generations, breeding more hatred. We've seen this cycle play out again and again in history.
 
Maybe we can’t completely disarm overnight. That’s understandable. But the direction must be clear and unwavering. Unfortunately, Abe administration is advancing in the opposite direction.
 
Now is the defining moment to change course, to stand for peace with conviction. Let Japan become the most peaceful nation in human history--the nation of unprecedented moral heights.

When Barack Obama visited Hiroshima as the first sitting US President to do so, he expressed a hope for a moral revolution--one that even his own nation is far from achieving.
 
Japan, as the only major nation on earth to constitutionally renounce war, has a unique opportunity. Our greatest power lies not in weapons, not in violence, but in our moral example.

Japan’s opportunity to reach the top of the world is right here right now, in peace and morality.
 
GANBARE! NIPPON!

Read Theme: Violence/Peace