The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 11, Issue 21, No. 3, May 27, 2013. Much Ado over Small Islands: The Sino-Japanese Confrontation over Senkaku/Diaoyu
Download 0.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Japan Moves to Scale Back Postwar Restrictions on the Use of Military Power
Japan's pacifist constitutionKeeping the peaceMay 14th 2014, 1:48 by D.McN. | TOKYO FOR a document cobbled together during a few hectic days in 1946, in bombed-out Tokyo, Japan’s constitution has weathered the test of time. Written during the American-led occupation, while thousands of starving, war-displaced citizens wandered the capital, the constitution has since remained untouched. That, for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is a problem. Conservatives have long resented the May 1947 constitution, which enshrines Western-style rights and officially ended the god-like status of the emperor, reducing him to a mere “symbol of the state”. In particular, Article 9, in which Japanese people “forever” renounce war as a “sovereign right” and also renounce “the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes” rankles Mr Abe’s supporters. Debates about the constitution have grown more heated with China’s rise. In a critical review this year, Japan’s government said China’s military budget has grown thirtyfold over the last decade; by contrast Japan’s military spending has been more or less flat for 20 years. China’s publicly-announced annual spending is twice that of Japan, says its defence ministry. Mr Abe’s government argues that Japan should be permitted to engage in “collective defence,” so that it can fight alongside a military ally—America—if that ally comes under attack. Until now, legal experts have interpreted the constitution as allowing Japan’s military to open fire only if directly fired upon. The government’s “reinterpretation” is the most profound challenge to the pacifist constitution since 1947. Mr Abe faces, however, one serious roadblock: the constitution’s popularity. Many ordinary Japanese support Article 9, which they credit with keeping the country out of war for 68 years. An opinion poll last month in the liberal-left Asahi newspaper found 63 percent of respondents oppose Mr Abe’s plans for Article 9. Even readers of the conservative Nikkei have serious doubts. Opposition has taken some novel forms. One group of campaigners has launched a sex strike. Women Who Don’t Have Sex With Men Who Love War has vowed to withhold the marital prerogative from any husband backing constitutional revision. A potentially greater challenge has emerged from the Norwegian Nobel committee, which last month shortlisted “Japanese people who conserve Article 9” for its peace prize. The quest for Nobel recognition was launched last year by a Japanese mother-of-two, Naomi Takasu. Michio Hamaji, a former Middle-East oil executive, lent his support, drawing on his business and political connections. A supporter of Mr Abe in “general terms,” Mr Hamaji is nevertheless alarmed by the threat of war with China. He has been joined by Hiroyuki Konishi, a Diet lawmaker who says the government’s attempt to reinterpret the constitution’s legal basis is effectively a “coup d’état”. The Oslo-based committee has a history of eccentric choices. And among this year’s confirmed candidates are Edward Snowden and Vladimir Putin. But Mr Konishi believes the Article 9 bid, quixotic as it sounds, has a chance of success. “Its simplicity and elegance is the reason why it has survived for so long,” he says. “I believe the world should recognise that.” He and Mr Hamaji hope to enlist the support of 50 lawmakers ahead of the Nobel announcement in November. If their bid were to succeed, one of the more interesting questions would be who goes to Norway to receive the award on behalf of “the Japanese people”—Mr Abe? Japan Moves to Scale Back Postwar Restrictions on the Use of Military PowerBy MARTIN FACKLERMAY 15, 2014 Photo
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Thursday said a stronger military would allow Japan to contribute to stability in the region. Credit Toru Hanai/Reuters PUSAN, South Korea — Prime Minister Shinzo Abe may be about to take one of his biggest steps yet to nudge Japan away from its postwar pacifism after a government advisory panel recommended Thursday that constitutional restrictions on the military be eased to allow Japanese forces to come to the aid of allied nations under attack. The panel, which was appointed by the Abe government, called on Japan to adopt a new legal interpretation of its war-renouncing Constitution that would permit an expanded role for its military, the Self-Defense Forces. Those forces have been strictly limited to protecting Japan’s own territory and people since they were created soon after World War II. The reinterpretation would allow Japanese armed forces to act in limited cases even when Japan is not at risk, such as by shooting down a North Korean missile headed toward the United States, something it cannot legally do now. The proposed change would also allow Japanese forces to play a larger role in United Nations peacekeeping operations, the panel said. Though Japan has sent troops to peacekeeping operations since 1992, they act under severe constraints. If accepted, it would represent a fundamental shift in the stance of Japan’s military. While Mr. Abe immediately voiced his support, the recommendations will now be debated within his governing coalition, where they face opposition from a small Buddhist party. That makes it unclear whether the proposals would be watered down before they could be adopted by the cabinet. Polls have also shown broad opposition in Japan, with many people concerned that the nationalistic Mr. Abe could use the proposed changes as a step toward dismantling Japan’s postwar Constitution and its rejection of war. “This will stretch Article 9 beyond reasonable and logical limits,” said Koichi Nakano, a political scientist at Sophia University in Tokyo, referring to the part of the Constitution that renounces war as a means of resolving disputes. “A lot of us are worried because this will not only negate Article 9, but the Constitution itself.” Mr. Abe said the changes were needed to enable Japan to respond to an increasingly assertive China and a nuclear-armed North Korea by building closer security ties with the United States and forming military alliances with democratic nations like Australia and India. He also rejected criticism that the changes would drag Japan into conflict. In a televised speech, Mr. Abe also said that a stronger military would help ensure the peace by allowing Japan to defend itself, and contribute to regional stability, a doctrine that he has called “proactive pacifism.” “There is a misunderstanding that Japan will once again become a country that wages war, but I absolutely reject this,” he said. “I will protect the principle of pacifism in the Constitution. By increasing our deterrence, our country will be able to avoid becoming caught up in war.” The proposal follows steps by Mr. Abe that supporters say aim to bolster Japan’s security posture, but that critics say are also increasing the strength of the national government, something many Japanese have been wary of since their disastrous experience with military-led authoritarianism in World War II. Since taking office in December 2012, Mr. Abe has pushed through an unpopular law to strengthen control of state secrets, created an American-style National Security Council and lifted Japan’s self-imposed restrictions on exporting weapons. In Europe this month, Mr. Abe agreed with the leaders of France and Britain to develop military equipment jointly. A reinterpretation of the Constitution would go much further, allowing Japanese forces to act more like a “normal” military. To do this, the panel of academics called for embracing a legal concept called “collective self-defense” that views protecting an ally as an act of self-defense, which they said is permitted under the current Constitution. Political experts also said Mr. Abe may see collective self-defense as a way of preparing the public for scrapping Japan’s pacifist Constitution, which he calls an outdated document written by postwar American occupiers. But with polls showing public opinion firmly against altering the Constitution, experts said Mr. Abe had appeared to settle, at least for now, on reinterpreting it. “He is looking for a less time-consuming way,” Dr. Nakano said. “But it raises questions when the government of the day can change the Constitution simply by issuing a new interpretation.”
Directory: tlairson tlairson -> The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 11, Issue 21, No. 3, May 27, 2013. Much Ado over Small Islands: The Sino-Japanese Confrontation over Senkaku/Diaoyu tlairson -> The South China Sea Is the Future of Conflict tlairson -> Nyt amid Tension, China Blocks Crucial Exports to Japan By keith bradsher published: September 22, 2010 tlairson -> China Alters Its Strategy in Diplomatic Crisis With Japan By jane perlez tlairson -> Chapter 5 The Political Economy of Global Production and Exchange tlairson -> Chapter IX power, Wealth and Interdependence in an Era of Advanced Globalization tlairson -> Nyt india's Future Rests With the Markets By manu joseph published: March 27, 2013 tlairson -> Developmental State tlairson -> The Economist Singapore The Singapore exception To continue to flourish in its second half-century, South-East Asia’s miracle city-state will need to change its ways, argues Simon Long tlairson -> History of the Microprocessor and the Personal Computer, Part 2 Download 0.61 Mb. Share with your friends:
|