The Land od the Rising Yen

the end of the war there have been no attempts to establish a
personal or group dictatorship. Without any such attempt, however, it is the z aibatsu
— the business interests — who gently advise and guide the government. In a
country where economics are the only vital interest many people regard this as
fair and sensible. Others allege that the zaibatsu is a nameless clique
of back-room boys, responsible to no one and unknown to the public, so the
arrangement is neither fair nor sensible. Whichever side is right, no unbiased
observer can say that there is a businessmen’s dictatorship in Japan and that string-pulling in the background is more rife than in any other democratic
country one could name.
    In 1885 Prince Hirobumi Ito formed Japan’s first parliamentary government; Mr Eisaku Sato formed its sixty-second in
parliamentary history and the seventeenth since the adoption of the new
constitution.
     
    This new constitution, in addition to
establishing a proper, working democracy in Japan, contains two remarkable
special articles.
    One of them established a principle
which is commonplace all over the world, and which therefore passed almost
unnoticed; the other introduced a unique principle and has therefore attracted
a great deal of attention.
    According to the new constitution the
Prime Minister can dismiss all his ministers. What could be more natural than
that? — readers may ask. What indeed? But in the twenties and thirties there
was one minister the Premier could not dismiss: and this single
undismissible member was the Minister of War. It was always the Army who ‘gave’
a Minister of War to the government. Had one been dismissed the Army would have
refused to supply a new Minister of War, a grave constitutional crisis would
have arisen and the formation of a government would have been impossible. It
was this rule which assured the Army’s domination over the government (a much
more sinister domination than that of the zaibatsu today). But for the
rule mentioned, the Manchurian incident and the Chinese adventure — always
resisted and disapproved by the government, always planned and forced upon them
by the Army, through the Minister of War — would have been impossible and
Japan’s modern history might have been very different. Her recent past would
have been better; her present would be worse.
    The other provision is widely known.
Article 9 of the 1947 constitution declares that ‘the Japanese people forever
renounce war as a sovereign right of the people’ and land, sea and air forces
are forbidden. The Americans rejoiced when this paragraph was accepted. It is
said to be General MacArthur’s own brainchild and one of his greatest personal
triumphs. The United States undertook full responsibility for Japan’s defence. Today the Americans would like to persuade Japan to rearm, at least to a
small extent. Japan does only as much as suits her: she does have some land,
sea and air forces. A constitution can be interpreted in many ways. But these
forces are tiny and could not protect Japan against any foe. The Americans
think Japan ought to have greater forces. The Germans have kindly agreed to
rearm, why not the Japanese? But Japan does not oblige; she shakes her head and
replies: ‘Tu l’as voulu, Georges Dandin,’ — it was your own idea, why
complain because your heartfelt wishes have been fulfilled? To leave the
defence of Japan to the United States is true to Japan’s original, sacred
promise; it is much more virtuous. And also much, much cheaper.
    It is also much more sensible and
logical. As long as we have two super-powers which keep the balance of terror —
or call it the peace of the world — by the Second Striking Force, by the ‘dead
man’s revenge’ — in other words through the fear of one that the other can
effectively retaliate even after a most devastating and successful attack — it
is more realistic to rely on one of these superpowers than to speak of
‘independent nuclear deterrents’. Not only more realistic but, I repeat, much,
much cheaper. You cannot really compare the prices of the two.
    The situation of Britain and Japan, so similar in many respects, seems to be the reverse in this one. But that’s only
how it appears at first glance. Japan is economically strong but politically
insignificant; while Britain is economically weak but still has a great deal of
political influence all over the world. This is true; but the point discussed
is defence.