Written on April 25, 2017, this essay exposes the false logic behind the postwar theory of “comprehensive peace treaties” and its continuity with modern opposition to collective self-defense. By revisiting the confrontation between Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida and academic leaders such as Shigeru Nanbara, the article reveals how constitutional scholars have repeatedly avoided political responsibility while undermining Japan’s security reality.

2017-04-25

The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.

(Opening omitted)

The Fiction of “Peace and Comprehensive Peace Treaties”

When constitutional scholars, including those recommended by the ruling party, testified in the Diet that the exercise of the right of collective self-defense violates the Constitution, public support for the Abe Shinzo Cabinet declined rapidly.

Watching this unfold reminded me of Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida when I was a high school student.

At that time, Japan was under U.S. military occupation, and once the occupation ended, the country would regain independence by concluding peace treaties with other nations.

Prime Minister Yoshida declared that Japan would conclude a separate peace treaty with the United States.

On the other hand, many believed that socialism would produce a better nation, and academics favored concluding peace treaties with China and the Soviet Union. However, that approach would inevitably place Japan in opposition to the United States.

Thus, they advocated “comprehensive peace treaties” with all parties, including the United States, China, and the Soviet Union.

In response to Prime Minister Yoshida’s argument for a separate peace treaty, Shigeru Nanbara, President of the University of Tokyo and a leading representative of academia, insisted that “comprehensive peace is what all citizens desire, and it is the duty of political scientists to argue for it.”

At the University of Tokyo’s graduation ceremony in March 1950, Nanbara again promoted the doctrine of “peace and comprehensive peace treaties.”

Angered by this, Prime Minister Yoshida criticized Nanbara, stating that “for figures like President Nanbara to intrude into the domain of politicians and make such claims is nothing other than the behavior of those who distort scholarship to curry favor with the times.”

The phrase kyokugaku asei appears in the Records of the Grand Historian and refers to scholars who bend learning to suit the prevailing winds of the era.

Some Constitutional Scholars Trapped in Pedantic Exegesis

Today, Japan faces a direct threat from China.

China has proposed jointly managing the Pacific with the United States and has spoken of establishing a “new model of major power relations” limited to the U.S. and China. But if the Pacific were divided in half, which side would Japan be placed on?

The fact that so many scholars oppose the exercise of collective self-defense may be rooted in the same thinking that once underpinned the doctrine of “comprehensive peace treaties.”

(To be continued)