This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/guardianwitness-blog/2014/may/16/shinzo-abes-plans-to-let-japans-troops-fight-pacifist-constitution

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Shinzo Abe's plans to let Japan's troops fight overseas: our readers react Shinzo Abe's plans to let Japan's troops fight overseas: our readers react
(4 months later)
Japan will never again become "a country that wages war," according to prime minister Shinzo Abe. He has, however, called for a review of how the country's unique pacifist constitution is interpreted, with the possibility that Japan may eventually engage in overseas conflicts alongside its allies.Japan will never again become "a country that wages war," according to prime minister Shinzo Abe. He has, however, called for a review of how the country's unique pacifist constitution is interpreted, with the possibility that Japan may eventually engage in overseas conflicts alongside its allies.
Though Barack Obama has recently supported the idea of Japan taking a more active role in its security alliance with the US, the review divides the Japanese public and is causing concerns in countries, particularly China, with lingering memories of Japan's conduct during the second world war. Though Barack Obama has recently supported the idea of Japan taking a more active role in its security alliance with the US, the review divides the Japanese public and is causing concerns in countries, particularly China, with lingering memories of Japan's conduct during the second world war.
We asked our readers in Japan and elsewhere their views on the proposed changes. You can read a selection below, and share your own views in the comments or via GuardianWitness.We asked our readers in Japan and elsewhere their views on the proposed changes. You can read a selection below, and share your own views in the comments or via GuardianWitness.
"Self-defence means self-defence, not invasion.""Self-defence means self-defence, not invasion."
I agree with the necessity to review current Japanese constitution I agree with the necessity to review current Japanese constitution as there is a contradiction between Article 9 and the Self Defence Force. The currently debated approach to the interpretation of Article 9 is a first step forward to resolving the contradiction, and I’m appreciative of it.
as there is a contradiction between Article 9 and the Self Defence I think the key point of this topic is the definition of “self-defence”. There are two conceivable definitions of it*. One is that the use of force only as a response to imminent threat or invasion, such as North Korea launching a missile to Tokyo or a country declaring war on Japan. The other one adds the use of pre-emptive action, such as dispatching the army to prevent a supposed attack, to the above definition. The current interpretation of Article 9 permits the use of the SDF in the first definition of “self-defence”, but not in the second one.
Force. The currently debated approach to the The right to collective self-defence, which prime minister Abe tries to include in the mandate of SDF, seems to be based on the second definition of “self-defence”. The use of the right to collective self-defence was notorious during the cold war. It was used as a justification for interfering with the internal political affairs of other countries, as the examples of the US dispatching its army to North Vietnam and the former USSR to Czechoslovakia both showed. To put this action more crudely, it is invasion in the disguise of help. This kind of arbitrary interpretation of self-defence should not be accepted.
interpretation of Article 9 is a first step forward to resolving the contradiction, and I’m appreciative of it. The introduction of the right to collective self-defence will likely increase the chance of Japan dispatching its army abroad. So the current Liberal Democratic Party's approach towards self-defence has to be corrected. It is a direct contradiction to the Japanese constitution and also not something to be accepted from the point of national sovereignty. Self-defence means self-defence, not invasion.
I think the key point of this topic is the definition of * I drew the two definitions from the successive debate on the interpretation of Article 9 and its relation to the right of collective self-defence. You can check it on the LDP website, though unfortunately it is only provided in Japanese.
“self-defence”. There are two conceivable definitions of it*. One is
that the use of force only as a response to imminent threat or invasion,
such as North Korea launching a missile to Tokyo or a country declaring war on Japan. The other one adds the use of pre-emptive action, such as
dispatching the army to prevent a supposed attack, to the above
definition. The current interpretation of Article 9 permits the use
of the SDF in the first definition of “self-defence”, but not in the second
one.
The right to collective self-defence, which prime minister
Abe tries to include in the mandate of SDF, seems to be based on the
second definition of “self-defence”. The use of the right to collective
self-defence was notorious during the cold war. It was used as a
justification for interfering with the internal political affairs of other
countries, as the examples of the US dispatching its army to North
Vietnam and the former USSR to Czechoslovakia both showed. To put this action
more crudely, it is invasion in the disguise of help. This kind
of arbitrary interpretation of self-defence should not be accepted.
The introduction of the right to collective self-defence will
likely increase the chance of Japan dispatching its army abroad.
So the current Liberal Democratic Party's approach towards self-defence has to be
corrected. It is a direct contradiction to the Japanese constitution and
also not something to be accepted from the point of national
sovereignty. Self-defence means self-defence, not invasion.
* I drew the two definitions from the successive debate on the
interpretation of Article 9 and its relation to the right of collective
self-defence. You can check it on the LDP website, though
unfortunately it is only provided in Japanese.
TomoyukiYTomoyukiY
"The need and benefit to Japan would be questionable.""The need and benefit to Japan would be questionable."
While Japan's constitution formally renounces war and makes explicit statements regarding the maintenance of materials that could be used to wage war, the modern interpretation has been built around the concept of Japan as an island nation.While Japan's constitution formally renounces war and makes explicit statements regarding the maintenance of materials that could be used to wage war, the modern interpretation has been built around the concept of Japan as an island nation.
Japan does not maintain any missile attack or defense systems currently, and instead is relying on treaties with the United States exclusively for ballistic missile defense and deterrence. Japan also does not maintain any navy material capable of long distance or logistical support, including aircraft carriers. Instead the Navy has a major focus on defensive attributes, deploying primarily destroyers and frigates with a specialization in anti-submarine combat.Japan does not maintain any missile attack or defense systems currently, and instead is relying on treaties with the United States exclusively for ballistic missile defense and deterrence. Japan also does not maintain any navy material capable of long distance or logistical support, including aircraft carriers. Instead the Navy has a major focus on defensive attributes, deploying primarily destroyers and frigates with a specialization in anti-submarine combat.
The Japanese self-defense force also lacks long distance air power, no bombers, only fielding air combat fighters, AWACs, and transport planes with a compliment of helicopters.The Japanese self-defense force also lacks long distance air power, no bombers, only fielding air combat fighters, AWACs, and transport planes with a compliment of helicopters.
The current situation leaves Japan in a region with high tensions and surrounded by countries who still consider the conflicts, occupations, and atrocities they suffered at the hands of the Japanese as recent events, with some countries openly (North Korea) or silently (China) spoiling for a conflict to prove themselves a world power.The current situation leaves Japan in a region with high tensions and surrounded by countries who still consider the conflicts, occupations, and atrocities they suffered at the hands of the Japanese as recent events, with some countries openly (North Korea) or silently (China) spoiling for a conflict to prove themselves a world power.
While Japan should be considering modification of its self defense force to account for a modern nature of conflict featuring long range missile attack and unified aggression from neighbors, the best way to reinforce Japan's ability to defend themselves while maintaining a Pacifist stance is probably not to commit Japanese forces to international 'peace-keeping' conflicts.While Japan should be considering modification of its self defense force to account for a modern nature of conflict featuring long range missile attack and unified aggression from neighbors, the best way to reinforce Japan's ability to defend themselves while maintaining a Pacifist stance is probably not to commit Japanese forces to international 'peace-keeping' conflicts.
The most likely intention behind Abe's announcement is to promote and engage Japan as a world peace contributor, but Japan does not have the logistics currently to efficient provide this kind of engagement on a global scale at the moment, and even if they were to build that capacity, the need and benefit to Japan (and the world at large) would be questionable.The most likely intention behind Abe's announcement is to promote and engage Japan as a world peace contributor, but Japan does not have the logistics currently to efficient provide this kind of engagement on a global scale at the moment, and even if they were to build that capacity, the need and benefit to Japan (and the world at large) would be questionable.
Ultimately one could hope that Japan can re-evaluate the current implementation of the JSDF to account for the modern threat theatre without over-extending the country to become mired in international conflicts that accomplish little but draining the country's finances at a time where they are just now beginning to climb out of a 20 year recession.Ultimately one could hope that Japan can re-evaluate the current implementation of the JSDF to account for the modern threat theatre without over-extending the country to become mired in international conflicts that accomplish little but draining the country's finances at a time where they are just now beginning to climb out of a 20 year recession.
kochirakochira
"I'm not convinced this shift is being made for the right reasons." "I'm not convinced this shift is being made for the right reasons."
I no longer live in Japan, but I still follow the news cycle from a I no longer live in Japan, but I still follow the news cycle from a distance. Although Abe's economic policies originally bore (spectacular) fruit, it was his stance on the constitution that left me pessimistic when he won the election.
distance. Although Abe's economic policies originally bore (spectacular) The 1947 constitution is a wonderful document and, while I believe that we as people should always be reviewing and improving the laws and principles upon which we run our respective countries, I'm not convinced that this potential shift towards belligerence is being made for the right reasons.
fruit, it was his stance on the constitution that left me pessimistic I cannot speak to an expert level, but the generally accepted wisdom is that young people in Japan are becoming increasingly apathetic towards politics, and this was borne out during my time in the country. An educated electorate is vital in situations like these, and it seems that many Japanese are basing their pro-reform views on a vague worry that North Korea might go rogue, and that their sovereignty is being undermined by the continued existence of US bases on the Japanese landmass. The introspection and forethought required before making as monumental a decision such as this is simply not taking place.
when he won the election. Although his legacy is questionable and the circumstances leading up to his arrival in Japan unfavourable, MacArthur was on the money when he claimed that in promulgating a constitution containing an article prohibiting warfare Japan was creating history and, through leading by example, providing the rest of the world with an opportunity to turn their backs on centuries of bloodshed. While the war-free utopia of which he spoke may not have materialised, if Japan rewrites article 9 then they turn their own back on a piece of constitutional law-making of which they should still be very, very proud.
The 1947 constitution is a wonderful document and, while I
believe that we as people should always be reviewing and improving the
laws and principles upon which we run our respective countries, I'm not
convinced that this potential shift towards belligerence is being made
for the right reasons.
I cannot speak to an expert level, but the generally accepted
wisdom is that young people in Japan are becoming increasingly apathetic
towards politics, and this was borne out during my time in the country.
An educated electorate is vital in situations like these, and it seems
that many Japanese are basing their pro-reform views on a vague worry
that North Korea might go rogue, and that their sovereignty is being
undermined by the continued existence of US bases on the Japanese
landmass. The introspection and forethought required before making as
monumental a decision such as this is simply not taking place.
Although his legacy is questionable and the circumstances
leading up to his arrival in Japan unfavourable, MacArthur was on the
money when he claimed that in promulgating a constitution containing an
article prohibiting warfare Japan was creating history and, through
leading by example, providing the rest of the world with an opportunity
to turn their backs on centuries of bloodshed. While the war-free utopia
of which he spoke may not have materialised, if Japan rewrites article 9
then they turn their own back on a piece of constitutional law-making
of which they should still be very, very proud.
Matt LotenMatt Loten