Japanese people hold up placards as they take part in a protest against Russia’s actions in Ukraine, during a rally near the Russian Embassy in Tokyo on March 4, 2022. (Photo: AFP)
By Cristian Martini Grimaldi
May 8 2023
Despite Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s commitment to seeing a revision of the current constitution, the Japanese public is divided on the need to hasten parliamentary debate on amending it.
The results of a recent survey showed that 49 percent of respondents said the Diet should move more quickly to examine changes to the supreme law — particularly the prohibition on starting wars in Article 9 — while 48 percent said exactly the opposite.
Distracted readers may think that amending Article 9 is a new dispute, but the Constitution of Japan has been a topic of heated debate since the end of World War II, over 70 years ago.
Japan’s defeat in the war led to the Allied powers’ occupation of the country, which included the writing of fundamental principles by which the country should be governed.
This new constitution, which was adopted in 1947, became the cornerstone of Japan’s post-war democracy. But as early as 1960 the Japanese government proposed a revision to Article 9 that would allow for collective defense. This was met with strong opposition from the public and ultimately failed to pass.
A few years later, in 1972, the revision of Article 9 was again proposed to allow for the creation of a fully-fledged military, but it was withdrawn due to strong opposition. Then again in 2005, the Liberal Democratic Party proposed revising Article 9 to allow for collective self-defense, but the proposal, again, was not approved.
“The current prime minister has pledged to achieve a revision of the constitution”
More recently, the cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2014, most people will remember, adopted a reinterpretation of Article 9 that allowed for the exercise of the right to collective self-defense.
Once again in 2018, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party adopted a proposal to include the existence of the self-defense forces in Article 9, but the proposal was not pursued further.
The current prime minister has pledged to achieve a revision of the constitution, including Article 9, before his term as president of the ruling party expires in September 2024.
Let’s remember that the new constitution was drafted by a group of American legal experts. The document was heavily influenced by the ideals of democracy, human rights, and pacifism. The constitution established Japan as a constitutional monarchy, with the emperor serving as a symbolic figurehead. It also included a bill of rights that protected individual liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion.
Right from the start, one of the most controversial aspects of the constitution was indeed Article 9, which renounced war and prohibited Japan from maintaining a military force. This provision was included to ensure that Japan would not engage in military aggression again, as it did during World War II. Instead, Japan was to rely on the United States for its defense.
As of now, there are about 55 American military installations in the whole archipelago. These bases are dispersed around Japan, with some of the highest concentrations being on the island of Okinawa.
The number of US military personnel stationed in Japan is roughly 55,000, including both active-duty personnel and civilian employees, while Japan’s Self-Defense Force is about 150,000 active-duty personnel.
“There has been a growing debate in Japan about whether to amend the constitution”
For many years, Article 9 was a source of pride for Japan. It was seen as a symbol of the country’s commitment to peace and its rejection of militarism. However, in recent years, the geopolitical situation in Asia has changed. North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, China’s military expansion, and Russia’s aggression in Ukraine have raised concerns about Japan’s security.
As a result, there has been a growing debate in Japan about whether to amend the constitution, particularly Article 9. Proponents argue that Japan needs to be able to defend itself against potential threats and that maintaining a military force is necessary for national security.
This was for example the position held by the late Shinzo Abe. Abe argued that Japan’s security environment had changed since the constitution was enacted in 1947 and that the country needed to have a more robust military to defend itself against external threats. Specifically, he sought to clarify the legal status of the Japanese self-defense forces to end arguments that they are “unconstitutional.”
Abe believed that amending Article 9 would allow Japan to play a greater role in international security affairs, by contributing more to regional security alliances and engaging in collective self-defense with allies.
Opponents have always argued that changing the constitution could lead to a revival of militarism and would undermine Japan’s commitment to peace.
Despite the growing debate, the Japanese public remains divided on the issue. But the final decision over amending the constitution has significant implications for Japan’s geopolitical position and its future. Should Japan choose to alter its constitution and expand its military capabilities, it could potentially adopt a more assertive role in the region.
However, this move could also escalate tensions with neighboring countries, particularly China. In the past, Chinese officials have expressed concern that any changes to Japan’s constitution would be viewed as a step towards remilitarization and a departure from Japan’s commitment to peace. From Japan’s perspective, this criticism appears inexcusable to say the least, as China has already made significant strides in its own military expansion. – UCA News
