So far discussion has focused mainly on vague notions of potential threats that Japan spontaneously may impose on its neighbors, or that its neighbors
may create by over-reacting to rearmament.
These concerns, if made specific and compelling, which so far has not been accomplished, would certainly have their place in a cost-benefit analysis.
My opponent, however, would like for you to presume that paranoid delusions are paramount, with no consideration of any other factor. These delusions
are predicated on a slippery slope
fallacy using a series of highly non-sequitur
If Japan were to rearm (news flash: modest, non-threatening rearmament has been taking place ever since the 1952 Mutual Security Assistance Pact. This
has not precluded peaceful overtures to North Korea, as my opponent suggested) my opponent irrationally concludes that their defense-only policy MUST
change, and IF it changes, then it will fight wars like Iraq and “who is to say that”
it won’t involve nuclear weapons.
(“Who is to say” denotes an appeal to ignorance
fallacy. The burden of proof is on the claim, not on the refutation thereof.)
The question at issue here is far too important to be decided as a knee jerk reaction to unsupported
sensationalist claims that a boogeyman
which has not been seen in 3 generations will suddenly reemerge to destroy us without cause or provocation.
My opponent attempted to pass off obscure, outdated, speculative information to support the hopelessly indefensible position he has been assigned, but
he got burned. Now he’s decided to introduce no evidence whatsoever in this round and carry the “fear defense” entirely on his own imagination,
even speculating on Japan’s abilities versus N. Korea. Apparently he knows something that General Thomas Schwartz does not, as he has testified to
Congress that even US forces presently in Korea could potentially be annihilated in as little as 3 hours.
We must examine all factors and weigh them against one another in a reasonable manner to determine whether the memory of WWII outweighs the clear
legal, moral, and practical necessity of Japanese rearmament.
The Japanese people forswore belligerence through Article 9 of their
, which despite being proposed by America as a
consequence of WWII, was affirmed by a democratically elected Japanese government. Disarmament does not exist in an explicitly permanent form in the
Implements of Surrender and therein referred to Potsdam Declaration
which call for the
disbanding of the disbanding of the military, but not necessarily in perpetuity, as implied by the affirmation of Japan’s sovereignty and
independence (article 10, Potsdam Declaration).
These treaties are given appropriate context by subsequent treaties, namely the 1952 and 1960 mutual defense treaties mentioned
, under which the United States implicitly avowed the
temporary nature of Japanese disarmament by arming Japan
Consequently there can be no argument that international law prohibits Japan from amending its constitution and completing rearmament for the
purpose of assisting in UN efforts.
There is no legal reason why Japan must not rearm.
The question which remains is whether or not Japan has a morally justifiable need to rearm. Rearmament is an integral component of Japan’s
leadership role. Only by rearming can Japan accept its full share of responsibility for maintaining the world which it does business with.
It is the responsibility of every economic power to be active in the international community so that peace and respect for human rights are observed
in those places where the economic power conducts business.
If Japan were to obtain resources from Sudan, for example, the blood of the people of Darfur would be on Japan’s hands. Japan must first be willing
and able to lead the demand for UN efforts there, so that business done there will not be done on the backs of the oppressed. How can Japan do this
with any credibility as an unarmed nation?
Shall their ambassador to the UN stand up and say “All of you who have militaries must send your sons to Sudan to risk their lives in defense of
the oppressed, so that Japan may profit with a clean conscience.”
Clearly not. Japan is a first world country, benefitting greatly from their place in the global community, and it is not only their right but their
duty to put themselves forward among the leaders of this community. This cannot be done as an isolationist country. They will be expected to lead from
the front if anyone is to join them.
There is a practical and moral reason why Japan MUST rearm.
My opponent has so far offered us nothing but fears, vague allusions, and logical fallacies. His one piece of evidence was refuted yesterday. His
interpretation of the question simply presumes his position to be correct. Given the above, how could it be?
(Word Perfect: 790)