In a
nutshell, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s security policy initiative for collective
self-defense means allowing Japan to do something that successive governments
have said the nation is banned by the Constitution from doing.
This is the essence of the policy
change the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner,
New Komeito, are currently discussing in their talks over Japan’s involvement
in collective self-defense.
An initiative to amend the related
constitutional provision to enable Japan to exercise the right to collective
self-defense would be a straightforward move anybody could understand. But the
Abe administration is not taking that aboveboard approach.
Instead, it is seeking to change the
government’s interpretation of the Constitution with regard to the related
provision to make it possible for Japan to engage in the right to collective
self-defense.
Even though the government’s position
on the issue will be changed to the exact opposite of the longstanding
interpretation, the LDP and New Komeito, during their talks June 27, took the
trouble of affirming that this is a “formal modification” that won’t change any
of the norms set by the Constitution.
This incomprehensible claim can only be
described as a self-serving attempt to justify the highly questionable policy
initiative.
Are all the lawmakers in the ruling
camp willing to agree to this argument and support the proposed Cabinet
approval of the change in the interpretation? There is still time left for them
to rethink their stances.
The revised draft of the Cabinet
endorsement the government presented to the ruling parties June 27 is supposed
to be based on the government’s official position on the issue announced in
1972.
In short, the 1972 government view
states that given the basic principles stipulated in the preamble to the
Constitution and Article 13, which demands respect of people’s “right to life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness,” it can be said that Article 9 doesn’t
prohibit the nation from taking “necessary measures for self-defense.”
But the 1972 statement also says that
Japan is allowed to use armed force only to fight “urgent and unjust” armed
aggression and concludes that the nation is “not permitted” to resort to the
right to collective self-defense to resist armed attacks against other
countries.
The Abe administration is trying to
rewrite only the conclusion while maintaining the logical framework of the
argument. Such an opportunistic attempt to change the government’s official
position on this important constitutional issue is simply unacceptable.
Another key element of the proposed
policy change that should not be overlooked concerns the issue of collective
security based on United Nations resolutions.
Abe initially ruled out the possibility
of Japan’s use of armed force under the framework of collective security.
Concerned that this position would make
it impossible for the Self-Defense Forces to engage in minesweeping operations
in areas like the Persian Gulf, the LDP proposed to give the green light to
such SDF operations under the framework of U.N.-sanctioned collective security.
But the issue was shelved after New Komeito expressed strong opposition to the
LDP’s proposal.
That’s why the draft Cabinet endorsement
doesn’t include any clear reference to this issue. But the set of possible
questions and answers related to the policy shift that has been prepared by the
government and revealed June 27 says minesweeping operations are permitted by
the Constitution. This is a cheap trick to end-run this weighty issue.
The Abe administration is making a
headlong rush into a Cabinet approval of the controversial policy shift by
using totally unreasonable arguments and leaving many Japanese clueless as to
what is really going on. The government claims Japan can actually engage in
collective security operations even if the proposed Cabinet endorsement doesn’t
say so.
There has been no honest, reality-based
debate on what should be done to protect Japan’s national security.
This policy initiative, if it is pushed
through, will leave the pacifist principles of the Constitution totally
eviscerated and the nation’s public opinion bitter divided. It will also leave
the Japanese voting public even more distrustful of politicians.--The Asahi
Shimbun
No comments:
Post a Comment