Article 9Erik Choi, Da Won Lee, Qiannan Zhang

Content• Background• Narratives• Interviews• Conclusion

Background: why contemporary issue ? • Yoshida Doctrine • Gordon – “Managed Miracle”; Igarashi – “Narrative”• Economic Recession

• Bubble Explosion – Lost two decades & “guaranteed social security”•International Instability

• Gulf War (1991); NK nuclear crisis (1994,2004); 911-Terrorism (2001); Rise of China

• Internal Disorder • 3.11 Crisis; ISIS hostage – “Incensed”

Japan: LDP’s proposal• Stipulation of right of self-defense

• First clause, kept

• “The right of belligerency” deleted

ProposalQ. What do people in Japan, Korea and China think about this issue? Why so?• Government technique and “genesis amnesia” (Fujitani; Gordon; Igarashi)

A. We supposed that• Nationalism (?)• Common generational perspective (?)

South Koreao Government: - “…the spirit of Japan’s peace clause [article 9] and

contribute to local peace and stability”- No unilateral actions “without our agreement”

o Media: - Disagree - Doubtful of the revision

Chinao Government: - Avoid direct comment on the amendment issue itself

o Media: - Facts with neutrality under the press’s own title- Quote foreign media’s opinions to express opposition

Interview

* On requests from interviewees, we keep the full name confidential.

Japan (3) South Korea (3) China * (3)20s • Naoko Anzai

• Yu Yamamura• Benjamin Lee• Jinsoo Kim• Wookyung Cho

H. N.

40s C. M.

60s~

Prof. Okamoto H. L.

SupportJapan (2) South Korea (1) China (0)

20s • Naoko Anzai• Yu Yamamura

• Benjamin Lee

40s

60s~

Supporto Naoko Anzai (J)-“…article 9 is too ambiguous and it contradicts with SDF.”

o Yu Yamamura (J)-“a right of a sovereign nation”-“…the right of self-defense should be legal.”

o Benjamin Lee (K/A)-“If I were Abe, I would do it now”-“Look at the outside situations… try to understand Japan’s

position”

Classmates [ Waseda University]Class discussion

Change as LDPChange dif -ferentNo Change

2

8

6

Opposition Japan (1) South Korea (2) China (3)

20s Jinsoo KimWookyung Cho

H. N.

40s C. M.

60s~

Prof. Okamoto H. L.

Opposition: 20so H. N. (C)-“War should not be allowed in any situations. …... When there

is a war, it will threaten the security of both countries’ citizens.”

o Wookyung Cho (K)-“No good comes for Korea from Japan’s possession of military” -“I don’t hate them, but am not fond of them”

oJinsoo Kim (K)-“…they already have the SDF”-“…just don’t like Japan that much”

Opposition: 40so C. M. (C)-“Japan’s request in increasing position in international order

is for its own profit instead of maintaining regional security.”

Opposition: 60s -o Prof. Okamoto (J)-“Constitution should be free to change; but protect article 9.”-“Article 9 is the identity; deception that is worth protecting.”

o H. L. (C)-” I hate Japan as well as Japanese. They are not human at all

to the civilized world, in contrast, Germen are.”

Conclusion o We found that…-Divergence within generation

• Classmates differed on LDP proposals• Different reasons: Prof.Okamoto (J) - H.L.(C), Kim and Cho(K) –

Benjamin lee (K/A) - Convergence across nations between Japan, Korea and China

• China and Korea, likely to oppose • Classmates(J) against the revision, Prof. Okamoto (J), C.M. (C) and

Kim & Cho (Kim) – regional stability

THANK YOU• We appreciate your contribution to the diversity of class

environment

•多文化の教育環境への貢献を感謝しております。

•感谢你们对多元化的课堂环境做出的贡献。• 다양한수업환경에기여한당신에게감사합니다 .