Content area
Full text
Writing a book challenging the prospects of Japanese militarization during the 3,188-day tenure of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seems like a risky endeavor. The popular press, pundits, and scholars were quick to declare the end of pacifism every time Abe pledged to amend the constitution, increase defense spending, bolster the defense sector, or return Japan to its "rightful" place in the international hierarchy. Abe did not achieve most of these policy goals, however. Hence, the irony is not lost on me that Fumio Kishida, the dovish prime minister from Hiroshima, introduced a new National Security Strategy, a Defense Buildup Program, and a five-year target to double defense spending to 2% of GDP, all within months of Abe's tragic assassination in July 2022.
I thank Asia Policy for giving me the opportunity to respond to these major developments. Japan's Aging Peace: Pacifism and Militarism in the Twenty-First Century sought to engage with the big international relations "ism" debates and the rich literature explaining Japan's reluctant and not-so-reluctant remilitarization. As such, I give my full gratitude to Charles McClean, Marina Fujita Dickson, Yoichi Funabashi, Christopher Hughes, and Paul Midford for pushing the debate forward by being so generous in time, praise, and critiques in this book review roundtable. I will quickly summarize the findings they found persuasive and then address some of the questions raised to push the debate forward.
To begin, I appreciate that there was universal agreement on the importance of considering demographics when discussing security policy. Previous studies looked at the broad pacifying or conflict-inducing effects of aging populations and youth bulges but neglected the very tangible impacts of demographics on defense force readiness, defense technology, social movements, and peace culture.1 Security policy cannot be understood
only by recognizing external threats but must consider domestic obstacles as well.2
Most reviewers also found value in two of the more significant claims of the book: (1) the existence of an antimilitarism ecosystem where ideational restraints and material constraints influence security policy, and (2) the limited utility of the traditional "militarism" concept. Where reviewers had some pause was whether ideational factors such as antimilitarism norms (or "rules," as I prefer to call them) can endure given recent developments such as the Russia-Ukraine war and reinvigorated hawkishness from...