Stanford’s “progressive” community should be embarrassed. The recent issue of The Stanford Progressive demonstrates
an utter ignorance of historical truths and a complete disregard for modern-day reality itself.

In his article, “Japan’s Turn From Pacifism,” Francois Jean-Baptiste argues that recent efforts by the Japanese government to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and to pass legislation allowing their military to expand their operations, along with the deployment of Japanese forces to Iraq, all represent an “alarming” shift towards a “path of achieving full militarism.” He claims “pressures of globalization” are to blame, but never sets forth any sort of logical explanation for why this is so. In fact, Japan’s apparent intent to amend its constitution to provide an enhanced legal framework for peacekeeping and defensive operations contrasts sharply with interdependence.

The great historian Robert Conquest once said, “Whether avoiding language or misusing it, efforts to be, or to appear, rigorous have always been with us.” Jean-Baptiste’s piece now serves as a stellar example of this. The Kaiser’s soldiers charging across No Man’s Land, Soviet tanks smashing a Hungarian uprising, squadrons of Hirohito’s Vals and Zeroes striking Pearl Harbor, Nazi panzers invading Western Europe at lightning speed, and massive parades of combat units marching in celebration through the streets of Pyongyang – these are the images of “full militarism” in action. By so loosely defining “militarism” to be applicable to any country which has a military legally capable of actually doing something (in Japan’s case, non-offensive operations), as many in Japan hope to achieve, is to also define largely pacifist nations who have militaries, like Canada and Norway, as fully militaristic. This clearly is nonsense and the result of redefining terms
to suit one’s purposes.

The careful reader may wonder why Jean-Baptiste provides no argument for why Japan shouldn’t be able to have more flexibility with its armed forces. He fails to mention the increasing threat from North Korea, whose Taepodong 1 missile has put the whole of Japan well within striking distance since 1998. He also completely ignores the hostility many Asian countries still hold towards the Japanese for their butchery in World War II, conceivably rendering Tokyo without substantial allies in the region. This is especially relevant when one considers China’s expanding military capabilities and saber-rattling over Taiwan. This is important historical context that helps explain why lawmakers in Japan desire more flexible force capability, potentially to deal with piracy and threatened trade routes.

Jean-Baptiste also offers no reason explaining why Japan shouldn’t be required to update its vision of its own armed forces, were it to join the Big Five. The US, Britain, France, Russia, and China have all contributed military forces to various international efforts, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Haiti, the Balkans, and West Africa. Isn’t it only fair that Japan, whose GDP tops France’s and Britain’s combined, be required to do so as well?

Perhaps Jean-Baptiste dislikes the mere prospect of expansion of the Security Council. Or perhaps Japan’s role in reconstruction as a member of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq upsets Jean-Baptiste because it reveals that a coalition of the willing does indeed exist. But as the progressive viewpoint is often deliberately wrapped in a cloak of ambiguity, we cannot know.

Without an understanding of history and an appreciation for realities in this dangerous world, The Stanford Progressive simply lacks credibility. If the publication represents the “progressive” community as a whole, it should come as no surprise their presidential candidate wasn’t trusted with our national security.