There’s a whole lot of lively debate going on out there in the Japan blog scene, and it’s good to see. It is, however, hard to keep track of at times. I thought I’d give a summary of some of the better stuff I’ve seen recently. I don’t mean to imply that I agree with what everyone’s saying, but they’re raising good points for discussion and that’s half the battle…

First, over at Observing Japan the Japan Observer has been putting some mileage on his keyboard as of late, and that’s a good thing. His “What if they had a debate…” post of May 17 gives a good summary of the recent exchange in the Diet between prime Minister Shinzo Abe and DPJ President Ichiro Ozawa. The conclusion, that Ozawa’s days as DPJ President are numbered, is one I agree with, though I think for the DPJ to turn in a solid result in July’s Upper House election, they may not be of short enough number. We’ll be coming back to this blog in a bit…

Over at Liberal Japan (formerly Japan in Amber), Matt Dioguardi’s “Shinzo Abe, American neoconservatives’ friend in Japan” is worth your time. Mr Dioguardi has dug up this quote from Shinzo Abe’s 2004 speech to the American Enterprise Institute:

…the government of Japan has continued to subscribe to the interpretation that, while Japan does possess the right of collective self-defense under international law, it is barred from the exercise of this right by its Constitution. This explanation for why Japan is “unable to exercise the right of collective self-defense” is for domestic consumption and cannot find acceptance in the world at large. It is clear that the interpretations adopted by the government of Japan have, in many respects, reached their practical limit.

You need to read the rest of this post.

Another post of note is a May 22nd entry at Ampontan entitled “Commentary on Japan’s constitution.” I have recently found myself irked by certain elements of the foreign media, who shall remain unnamed (B-C et al.), who seem to enjoy publishing headlines such as:

Ok, I’m sort of exaggerating. But actually, not that much; I’ve actually seen something close to the second one, and the third as a photo caption. At any rate, thanks to Ampontan’s William Sakovich for pointing out that:

First, observers should understand that the bill passed by the Diet last week simply establishes procedures by which a national referendum will be held on any proposed Constitutional amendments. Changing the Japanese Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Diet and a simple majority in a national referendum.

And that won’t be easy. I wish you didn’t have to point it out, but given those headlines coming from unnamed foreign media sources, I’d say the reminder is in order. Now I suppose I should pick a bone with you:

It is not widely reported outside of Japan, but the proposed changes to the Constitution do not focus exclusively on Article 9, the so-called “Peace Clause”. One proposed amendment is to change Article 89 to allow the government to subsidize some religious institutions (for example, Shinto shrines). Had the proposed Constitutional amendments concerned only Article 89, Japan would still have had to enact the identical procedural mechanism—and none of it would have been the business of the Chinese.

I agree with the first sentence. I also think China is fully capable of somehow making a political issue out of Article 89, although - and this is important - I don’t think they’re nearly as likely to make the same issue out of it as either 1) Article 9, or 2) If this had come up while Mr Koizumi were in power. And one more: 3) If Mr Abe (or whoever is the Prime Minister in three years) does visit Yasukuni. Whether or not the politicization of such an issue is valid is not what I’m arguing, just that I don’t have a hard time imagining it being a nice distraction should one be expedient to have.

But, that’s not a serious point. My real point is with Article 9. Sure, there are other parts of the Constitution being considered for amendment, but Mr Abe has has Article 9 in his crosshairs. During same speech at the American Enterprise Institute quoted above, when Mr Abe gave his three reasons why Japan’s Constitution should be revised, his second was this:

The second reason pertains to the various points in the Constitution, which after the passage of more than 50 years are no longer consistent with contemporary conditions. The classic example of such an anachronism is to be found in the provisions of Article 9. It has now become clear that the safety and security of the country cannot be preserved under the present Constitution. In addition to Article 9, there are many other provisions that need to be reviewed and revised in light of the changing times.

Article 9 is the only specific article he talked about. I know it’s only one speech, but this is a general pattern that we’re seeing. So, to sum up. Bill, I think you’re right: The foreign media is myopic and ignoring the larger issues and contexts surrounding constitutional revision. But, I’m not sure if the “larger issue” isn’t just smoke and mirrors and that the focus on Article 9 is warranted, though treatment of it thus far has surely been (can I use this word?) half-assed by the foreign media.

On that note, and getting back to my tirade against the foreign media (has it reached that pitch yet?) After writing all this I just discovered that the wisest blogger of them all (in my estimation), Jun Okumura, already stole my thunder and wrote a piece entitled “Not that BBC Will Get the Real Story Out on Education and Patriotism” back on May 19.

Mr Okumura discusses the recent education reform bill and astutely points out that the DPJ is closer to the LDP on this issue than the LDP’s coalition partner, New Komeito. I’ve also discussed how the LDP and New Komeito’s disagreement over constitutional reform may damage their working relationship. In his post, Mr Okumura points out:

The DPJ’s objection focused on the relationship between the central authorities and the local education boards (DPJ favored the boards), and more importantly, was taken in anticipation of the upcoming elections, as they deliberately chose a more confrontational posture on all the issues…BBC could have given you this back story. Instead, it tacks on the constitutional amendment issue and regurgitates the conventional wisdom of resurgent Japanese nationalism and Chinese and South Korean suspicions. It isn’t much to ask for if they can do a little extra digging on the whale story.

Mr Okumura even drew an irate anonymous commenter to his blog, who proceeded to make an ass of himself (sorry ladies, I’m assuming this commentator was a man, based on the sheer stupidity on display).

However, Mr Okumura, I must urge you to exercise some restraint - next week we might be seeing this headline:

Ok, that joke might have gone too far. What can I say, I’m drinking (not really, but I probably should say so).

Well, this has gone on just about long enough. I was hoping to talk about Shisaku’s post “Elections Outlook - A first crack” and then move on to Ampotan’s “The mirage of Japanese nationalism (1)” (is a “2″ implied here? A trilogy? Come on man, the suspense is killing us!) and finally get to Observing Japan’s recent reply to that post, “Checking premises.” I would have liked to discuss Adam Richard’s piece “Dentsu in the News, Part 2: The Bad News” at Mutant Frog, but perhaps I’ll just head over there and leave a long comment…

Listen Now:

 Japan Blog Scene: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download