Back in March 2006 in a ministerial-level meeting held in Sydney, a joint statement issued by three key pacific democracies - the U.S., Japan, and Australia - paves the way for the Australian-Japanese security declaration signed this week. For the Howard Government, this declaration forms part of its consistent foreign policy of enhancing cooperation with Japan and the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region. For Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister, however, the declaration - the first security agreement Japan has ever entered since last one with the U.S. in 1960 - is not just a milestone for both nations; it signifies a new chapter of his "more normal" Japan.

What makes Japan "abnormal" for the past 60 years lies largely in the Article 9 of its constitution. It stipulates that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." To achieve this goal, the second part of the Article denies the nation of having an army, navy or air force. Mr Abe is right when he says the situation has changed for the past six decades and with the heated tension in the Korean Peninsula, it makes sense to rewrite the pacifist constitution that was imposed upon the nation after its defeat in WWII. His attempt of having a viable Japanese army will probably get the acquiescence of the U.S. and many western countries' blessings since America is fighting an uphill battle in Iraq, aggravated by the British withdrawal. And there's a common consensus, agreed by even China and Russia, that North Korea's dangerous aberration needs to be effectively stopped.  Being an admirable member of the rich-nation club and the second largest contributor (the U.S. being the top) to the UN's regular budget, Japan is also widely expected by the international community to shoulder more responsibilities in settling disputes, peacekeeping operations, and maintaining regional stability. The recent ballistic and nuclear adventurism of North Korea further indicates the urgency of a re-written constitution. After all, it will be hard to persuade Japan to wait to react until the first missile from the Korean Peninsula hit its home island.

But a breakaway from Japan's outmoded constitution and the wish of flexing military muscle cannot simply be painted as domestic affairs as Mr Abe would like it to be. To the former occupied countries like South Korea and China, an unconstrained Japan is not as much as a force for good as a force for invasion and expansion. To be more specific, for the Chinese and the Korean the greatest nightmare is not seeing a responsible Japan sending troops in Cambodia, Iraq, or East Timor; rather it is seeing a jingoistic revisionist taking the helm of the nation, which will be "normal" enough to have one of the most advanced and powerful army in the world. And that¡¦s just what's likely to happen in Japan.  Mr Abe has been a standard-bearer of those who want to reverse the 1993 "Kono statement" that offers official apology to the former sexual slaves; he not only once stated that Class A war criminals in WWII are not criminals under Japan¡¦s domestic law. Worse still, he¡¦s also the one trumpeting an education reform that emphasises more on nationalism and "love of one's country". The new bill passed recently bears some resemblance to the pre-war Imperial Rescript that demands self-sacrifice in the name of Emperor. It's natural to see why the Chinese and Korean officials strongly oppose to any change to the constitution.

This is also why this week Mr Howard was treading very carefully in handling the joint security agreement. Even before his departure for Japan, Mr Howard assured China that this agreement was not aimed at any country. He also played down the role of the agreement: "No, it's not like ANZUS (the mutual defence pact between the US, Australia and New Zealand).  It's not of that order but it's obviously a very important step forward." It may seem that Australia is pandering to China, yet it would be naive to say that Australia's foreign policy is determined by China's interests as some commentators claim. It's in fact the greater interests of other Asian countries we are dealing with here, not just that of China. A more assertive Japan is not really a threat to China as both nations have long been loggerheads on many issues, but a more assertive Japan falling in the hands of revisionists is the root cause for concern across Asia.

Like it or not, Australia has been inevitably sucked in the most sensitive part of East Asian politics. The value of the Australia-Japan security agreement will not be appreciated across the region if Japan still sticks to its revisionist agenda. For the agreement to work smoothly and the alliance to become a credible force, Australia needs to make sure that its ally is playing a responsible role when dealing with the past. Mr Howard made the right move when he urged the Japanese government "not to forget the past while we move on." That's the message that Mr Abe should take heed and most Asian leaders will welcome.

(By: Brandon Chen)