Japanese Constitution

Question; What is the significance of Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution? What are the implications of the moves to change it?

Introduction

It is said that Article 9 of JapanЃfs Constitution has been one of the controversial issue in Japanese post war politics. The so-called Ѓgpeace clauseЃh is also known as most controversial clause, which consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph declares renunciation of war and the second declares renunciation of military forces and other war potential.

However, Japan has military forces called the Self Defence Forces. To avoid the appearance of militaristic revival, the each department of the forces were named the Ground Self Defence Force, the Maritime Self-Defence Force, and the Air Self-Defence Force, instead of the army, navy, and air force. However, although they do not have long range missiles or nuclear weapons to attack other countries, instead, they are very well equipped and are still one of the most powerful military forces in the world. Therefore, they are virtually no different from other military forces in the world. Certainly possession of these military forces contradicts Article 9 in the constitution. Besides, the Forces were established in 1954, only few years after the Japanese constitution came into force. Consequently, the nation has been contradicting its own constitution for more than 50 years and this has been the subject of controversy.

Some insist that it is for the sake of world peace to change the constitution so that Japan is able to maintain military forces and deploy them overseas, while others severely criticise this movement as a revival of militarism. Ultimately, Japan has to either, dissolve the SDF, or change the constitution for the first time since it was adopted, to be free from the prolonged and controversial contradiction.

Historical background

Soon after the defeat in World War Two, Japan was occupied by the United States (US) and other Allied Forces. Being fostered by the US, the new Japanese constitution came into force in 1947. However, in 1950, just three years after the constitution was issued, the Korean War broke out. Even though war took place in a neighbour country, Japan was virtually helpless to guarantee the nationЃfs external security. Therefore, Japan needed to have a defence relationship with the US. At the same time, the US wanted to build military bases just in front of Korea and the Soviet Union (USSR) because the war was about the Cold War, so to speak the opposition between the USSR and the US. As a result, with the encouragement of the US, the Japanese government authorized the establishment of the National Police Reserve, which would become the Self Defence Forces in a short time. Therefore, the government interpreted Article 9 as allowing for military forces for defensive purposes. In 1951, Japan entered into the Japan-US Security Treaty and Japan accepted the presence of US military forces within the nation. This is to say, from an USЃfs standpoint, the formation of military forces in Japan after World War Two was one of USЃfs anticommunism policies. However, antimilitaristic public opinion remained as a strong force in the nation and the constitutional legitimacy of the SDF was challenged many times.

Interpretations

Since the SDF was formed, the Japanese government has been expanding its interpretation on Article 9 so that the Self Defence Forces can participate in overseas peacekeeping activities.

Concretely, in 1992, the National Diet passed a United Nation(UN)Ѓfs Peacekeeping Cooperation Law which permitted the SDF to participate in UNЃfs peacekeeping operations under strictly limited conditions. Under the law, the forces were sent to Cambodia and Mozambique to participate in peacekeeping operations, which were actually appreciated and valued internationally.

Self-Defence Forces in Iraq

However, in 2004, The Koizumi cabinet decided to send troops to Iraq at the request from the US under the new law called Humanitarian Relief and Iraqi Reconstruction Special Measures Law. The SDF was sent in order to assist the US-led occupation of Iraq, participating in peacekeeping operation over the country. This deployment is considered as a significant turning point in the history of Japanese post-war politics as it is the first time since the end of World War Two that Japan sent troops abroad except for a few UN peacekeeping deployments. The deployment of troops to the battlefield was still not permitted under the new law and troops were to solely take part in police action However, the Iraqi territory all over could potentially be a battlefield and it is possible the troops engage in fight, which will contradict both of the two paragraphs in Article 9; renunciation of war and war potential. Public opinion regarding the deployment of troops to Iraq has divided the country sharply. 54 percent of respondents to a survey by Mainichi Shinbun, Japanese popular news paper, said they were opposed to Japan taking part in the war, while 33% approved it.

It must be noted that Japan's military forces are constitutionally structured under the expanded interpretation of Article 9 which allows only defence-dedicated military forces. Therefore, The Democratic Party, the major opposition party, as well as many people criticize the law severely and insist that it is unconstitutional to simply deploy troops abroad.

Movement to amend Article 9

In response to increasing public opinion regarding the deployment as an unconstitutional act, in 2005, the Liberal Democratic Party(LDP), the ruling party led by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, proposed an amendment to the current constitution in order to have military forces constitutionally and increase their roles in international affairs.

In the proposed draft, first paragraph of Article 9, renouncing war, is retained. The second paragraph, forbidding Ѓgthe maintenance of land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential" is replaced by an article which permits a "defence forces" and their

participation in international activities. This new article uses the Japanese term "Gun" which means army or military forces, and has been avoided in the current constitution since this word is sometimes associated with militarism or war. So, in the proposed draft, Self Defence Forces were changed into Self Defence Army. However, on the whole, by retaining the renunciation of war, the draft does respect the original intent of Article 9.

As mentioned, the Japanese government has been expanding the interpretation of article