[Tintin Storm]

Japan's foreign policy becomes tougher
Japan again increases the military budget. In 2018, the Japanese government planned to spend $ 45.7 billion on defense. Thus, spending on military purposes will increase by 1.5% as compared with the previous year.
Tokyo justify the increase of budget by the growing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, as well as the need to purchase two ground-based Aegis Ashore missile defense systems from the US.
According to analysts, the increase in military spending has a deeper background. It has been 70 years since the signing of the Ninth Article of the Constitution by Japan. There have been significant changes in the military sphere in the Land of the Rising Sun during this time. Tokyo achieved such high results thanks to the United States, which pursued its goals in the APR and needed an influential ally. In 1954, Japan, which does not have the right to its own armed forces, military production and military educational institutions, enter into an agreement with the US on assistance in ensuring mutual defense and creates the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Gradually, the Japanese armed forces are undergoing significant changes with the assistance of the allied forces of the United States. This to date is not just a defense department of the country, but one of the strongest armies. In December 2012, the Japan's government approved a draft reform of the armed forces, which involves renaming the Japanese Defense Forces to the Army and giving it the right to strike at enemy bases. In addition, it was planned to create a marine corps and increase the effectiveness of the ABM system, as well as purchase additional weapons in the United States. Japan's Self-Defense Forces are allowed to take part in military conflicts abroad since 2015.
Thus, Tokyo came close to revising the Ninth article of the Constitution. The starting point in this matter was the statement of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in May 2017. Undoubtedly, changing the Constitution is a complex and lengthy process. The opinion of not only the ruling coalition, but also the holding of a referendum is required to make a final decision. In addition, according to Shinzo Abe: "It is necessary to deepen the discussion among the people. Then we can decide on the timing. In any case, this issue will not be decided only by the ruling coalition. "
The deepening of the "understanding of the people" is an important point, to which Tokyo goes very carefully. The idea of North Korea's nuclear power, which at any moment can attack Japan, is constantly being discussed. Moreover, Japan regularly conducts military exercises, which once again spur Pyongyang and provoke it for regular missiles launches.
In fact, the residents of Japan have long been ready to support the amendment to the Ninth article of the Constitution, related to the introduction of changes on the status of the Self-Defense Forces. This is evidenced by surveys among the Japanese population, which were conducted by the Japanese newspaper "Iomiuri" with the support of the US Public Opinion Research Service Gallup. According to the publication, 83% of respondents believe that the main threat to the inhabitants of Japan is the DPRK. "Right" position of the population over the growing threat from the DPRK will provide the ruling coalition of Shinzo Abe with the necessary support in revising the Constitution, scheduled in 2020.

[ThirdTerm]

However, the prime minister’s caution on constitutional changes is understandable. Abe has proved himself remarkably adept at maneuvering Japan’s parliamentary politics — and he probably knows that amending the constitution will require a high level of public support he may not possess.

Even allies are unsure that Japanese citizens can be convinced to amend Article 9. Former defense minister Shigeru Ishiba, a member of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and a vocal proponent of rewriting the constitution, said in an interview that it had proved “extremely difficult” to mobilize citizens behind the issue.

In theory, the coalition government’s two-thirds majorities in both houses of parliament means it can push through pretty much any legislation it wants, including changes to Article 9. Abe would clearly have the parliamentary support: One analysis found that 80 percent of politicians in the newly elected lower house supported a rewrite of the constitution.

Any changes to the constitution, however, then require majority approval from the public in a referendum. Polls show mixed support for amending Article 9 among Japanese voters. And as the Brexit vote showed Britain’s David Cameron, winning an election is not the same thing as winning a referendum.

“One thing that Mr. Abe does not want is to go out as a failure,” said Michael Cucek, an adjunct professor of politics at Temple University’s Japan campus in Tokyo. “Messing up the first attempt to ever amend the constitution would be extremely damaging.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as ... 6c1be69ef3

The Japanese leadership is very pessimistic about the prospect of amending the pacifist constitution. The government’s two-thirds majorities in both houses of parliament make it possible to propose a constitutional amendment to Japanese voters. But the majority of them would have to vote for the constitutional change in a national referendum. Most Japanese voters believe that it was the Army which wronged the country in the 1930s and giving too much power to the SDF will take the country back to the dangerous era. Due to strong anti-military sentiments among the public, SDF soldiers are treated with disrespect like Vietnam veterans who came back from Vietnam.

Already unpopular in Japan, by changing the ranks and names of basic service functions, everyday citizens who shunned military matters lost even more of their basic military awareness. In contrast with the average U.S. citizen who at least has heard the word “sergeant” and may grasp the basic differences between the services, for a long time Japanese, from the lowliest pauper to the highest policymakers, actively scorned the JSDF. Facing neglect from their own countrymen and forced to use names that intentionally emasculate them, it is no wonder the JSDF revert to the old names on occasion; to do otherwise would not only be to ignore their own history but would also be self-deprecating and potentially harmful to unit morale.
https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/postwar ... se-forces/