Japan: Constitution Day Feted, Fought Over
ASIA--PACIFIC, 5 May 2014
Japan’s pacifist Constitution is at a crossroads as the 67th anniversary of its taking effect was celebrated around the country on Saturday [3 May 2014].
The charter has never been amended since it entered into force in 1947, but the Diet is paving the way for potential revisions and is slated to enact a law to lower the national referendum voting age to 18 from 20 this year.
Although more parties in both the ruling and opposition camps concede the necessity of revising the Constitution in accordance with the needs of the times, they are divided as to whether Japan should be able to exercise the right to collective self-defense without such amendment.
While Prime Minister Shinzo Abe aims to announce Japan can exercise that right — with Cabinet approval, after a private advisory panel submits a report on collective self-defense in mid-May — his ruling Liberal Democratic Party is now pushing for “limited” collective self-defense scenarios under which Japan could defend the United States, its primary ally, to help ease the concerns of junior coalition partner New Komeito.
“Collective self-defense falls under the minimum necessity for self-defense,” LDP Vice President Masahiko Komura argued on an NHK program on Saturday.
The LDP’s limited collective-self-defense concept was put on the table in an apparent attempt to win over New Komeito, as the two parties will expedite their discussions on the issue this week. Yet LDP Secretary-General Shigeru Ishiba also noted in Washington on Friday that the concept can be expanded because such limitations might not be able to deal with a fluctuating security environment.
Forced to engage in a delicate balancing act, New Komeito released a statement Saturday to mark Constitution Day, saying a reinterpretation of the charter requires more careful discussion as to why and how it should be changed, as well as how this will affect the livelihoods of Japanese citizens and, more broadly, the global community.
“We are not necessarily against a reinterpretation,” New Komeito Vice President Kazuo Kitagawa told the NHK program. “But we need to have a clear standard if we recognize limited collective self-defense.
“There are cases we can deal with by exercising individual self-defense or policing activities,” said Kitagawa, implying that Japan can shoot down missiles flying over its territory without resorting to collective defense.
Opposition parties are also divided on the issue.
The Democratic Party of Japan said in a statement Saturday that there is room for reinterpreting the Constitution to reflect the changing security situation, but that constitutionality will be violated if the government changes the charter at its convenience.
Yet the DPJ has failed to achieve a consensus. While party leader Banri Kaieda is generally against reinterpretation, Akihisa Nagashima, who served as senior vice defense minister under the Cabinet of Yoshihiko Noda, told U.S. Sen. John McCain last month in Washington that there is wide support for the LDP on this issue.
Nippon Ishin no Kai (Japan Restoration Party) decided in April to support Abe’s push for reinterpretation, as well as other constitutional revisions, such as directly electing the prime minister. Your Party also does not oppose Abe’s position.
Among opponents of reinterpretation, Kenji Eda, leader of Yui no To, said Japan should consider how to cope with current and future security demands without modifying war-renouncing Article 9, and Seikatsu no To (People’s Life Party) President Ichiro Ozawa is also against the proposal if the aim is to permit collective self-defense.
The Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party both oppose any attempt to revise Article 9 and exercise collective self-defense.
Among the public, recent opinion polls show less support for revising the Constitution compared with a year ago.
According to an NHK survey of 1,600 people last month, 28 percent of respondents said Article 9 should be amended, down 14 points from the previous year. Those who do not want the charter revised accounted for 26 percent, up 10 points, while 40 percent were neutral on the issue.
As for collective self-defense, the same NHK poll found slightly more people are against Japan exercising the right. Thirty-four percent said the nation should exercise it either by amending or reinterpreting the Constitution, while 41 percent said Japan should not exercise the right at all.
Go to Original – japantimes.co.jp
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
What Abe’s government intends to do is to attempt, with the close coordination with the US military, to foster Japan’s SDF more to build-up a counter-military power against the Chinese military power. As the Chinese military power is growing rapidly, Abe’s government is urging SDF to achieve that goal. This situation can be understood as an armed race between China and Japan.
It seems, according to mass media reporting, that China is planning to become one of the so-called world ruling bi-polars; the US Empire is one, a Chinese Empire will possibly become the other. As China does not have close allies (perhaps except Russia), it needs to recruit allies in the neighboring areas. Although the relation between China and Russia may be a horizontal one, that between China and small neighboring countries might become vertical relations. This may lead China to establish, in the middle or long-term, what one might call a Chinese Empire. (Remember the relations between the USSR and Eastern European countries.)
China knows that there is no possibility that Japan will become China’s allied nation so that China has one of the main reasons to increase and improve its military power. As a counter action, Abe’s government also gains one of the main reasons to increase and improve its military power. For Abe’s government, the Constitution of Japan, especially its Article 9 among other relevant Articles, is a substantial obstacle in achieving the goal.
In such armed racing situation, both China and Japan should remember a Chinese sage’s teaching, “If others possess wealth, then I possess humanity; If others possess high status, then I possess justice. Therefore, the gentleman never forces his thoughts on others.” (Hung Ying-ming, aka Hong Zicheng; from his book, Cai gen tan, published entitled, “The Unencumbered Spirit”, translated by William Scott Wilson, Kodansha, Tokyo, 2009, p.54.) Accordingly, it is possible to be understood in the contemporary East Asian context as follows: “If others possess military power, then I possess peace/nonviolence; If others possess high political and military pressure, then I possess human rights and international justice.”
That sounds too idealistic and too unrealistic. Gandhi received the same criticism when he was working for India’s independence. Regardless of that, both China and Japan should learn a lesson from history about the outcome of the armed race. Both countries need Gandhis now. Meanwhile, the United States needs to remember President Eisenhower’s warning speech on military industrial-complex, which can be listened to on YouTube and whose manuscript can be read on some websites. “Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it.” – George Santayana (and/or possibly others as well).
Ask Chinese people of what relation they wish to have with Japan. Ask Japanese people of what relation they wish to have with China. (Also, ask Russian people of what relation they wish to have with Ukraine and the neighboring countries and regions.) Are these peoples wise enough not to repeat the past tragedies or mistakes? Or will they create much worse consequences than the past tragedies or mistakes even if they learn from the history?
One never knows if we, humans in the 21st Century, may be steadily and quietly entering into a more dangerous age than the Cold War Ear in the 20th Century; this time, it possibly includes the mutual destruction of the world and regional financial structures (even sometimes, without the use of military powers).
PS.
———-
1) Correction: The last paragraph (i.e. the seventh paragraph) in my comment above. “The Cold War Ear” should be corrected to “The Cold War Era”.
———-
2) Some people say that the fifth paragraph of my comment above is unclear for them. Therefore, let me elaborate it by inserting the following passage after the second sentence (i.e. Gandhi received the same criticism when…..) of that paragraph in order to make the message in the same paragraph (hopefully) clearer:
In fact, to achieve peace or any other legitimate goal by peaceful means is apt to be considered as too ideal and/or too unrealistic. On the other hand, to achieve something (i.e. a national/state objective) through war or any other violent means is apt to be considered as ideal and/or realistic. Therefore, few political leaders tend to choose the former, while many tend to choose the latter. However, the results of the choice of the latter have always been disastrous, miserable or inhumane consequences as history indicates. Lao Tzu says in his book, Tao Te Ching, “The most fruitful outcome does not depend on force, but succeeds without arrogance, without hostility, without pride, without resistance, without violence.” (Chapter 30 of Tao Te Ching, translated by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo) and “When many people are killed, we feel sorry and grief. A great victory is a funeral ceremony.” (Chapter 31). Furthermore, Sun Tzu warns in his book, The Art of War, “War is …..a matter of life or death, the road either to survival or to ruin” (Chapter 1 of The Art of War, translated by Gerald A. Michaelson and Steven Michaelson) and “…a state that has perished can never revive, nor a dead man be brought back to life” (Chapter 12). Have the contemporary national leaders learned lessons from history? In this regard, both Chinese and Japanese leaders should know Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War with all their heart because these books have been their essential classical reading materials over the centuries, while American military leaders should know Sun Tzu’s The Art of War with all their heart because they study it at their military academy. Let’s look at what Chinese, Japanese, the US or any other national leaders are and will be doing.
———-