Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a political decision which betrays the Japanese people. His Cabinet formally reinterpreted the Constitution on Tuesday, July 1, reading it as permitting at least partial use of the right of collective self-defense. This allows Japan to aid allies such as the United States if they come under military attack, even when Japan itself was not under direct attack. The authorization runs counter to the war-renouncing principle of the Article 9 and marks a landmark shift in the postwar security policy. The Abe administration forced the decision through, ignoring the public and without sufficient Diet discussions. Abe should seek a public mandate on whether he can let Japan shift to a country which can wage a war.
According to the new conditions introduced by the administration, Japan can come to the aid of a friendly nation if the attack on that country poses a clear danger to Japan’s survival or could fundamentally overturn Japanese citizens’ rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and if the use of force is limited to the minimum necessary. The administration said some of the newly permitted actions could be perceived as exercising right to collective self-defense under international law.
The term “clear danger” is so ambiguous that it seems rather difficult to think it can work as a restraint on expansion of Self-Defense Forces’ involvement abroad. The administration has also given a range of examples as to how the Self-Defense Forces might be used when related laws are revised, including a scenario in which SDF personnel rescue civilians engaged in United Nations-backed peacekeeping operations that come under attack, using weapons if necessary to defend those civilians. SDF using military force on other countries could be taken as Japan’s first strike. This would be a reckless action which could trigger war.
The Article 9 of the Constitution states that the Japanese people forever renounce war and use of force, never maintain any war potential and will not recognize the right of belligerency. It is clearly unconstitutional for Japan to use armed force in other countries without revising the Article 9. We also cannot allow the government of the day to reinterpret the Constitution. If the government really thinks it is necessary to change the Constitution, it should openly suggest its revision to the public and call for their judgment.
Although the move was one of the biggest challenges that decides Japan’s future, pacifist coalition member New Komeito failed to stop the Liberal Democratic Party’s rush towards adopting a broader defense posture. The Japanese people have been ignored more than ever. It is a threat to Japan’s postwar peace and democracy. Swaths of prefectural and local governments have formally voiced opposition to Abe’s moves or how it was carried out. Citizens’ groups are conducting protest rallies all over the nation for days. In the Diet, however, no opposition party had the power to put the brakes on the LDP and the Cabinet. Now is the time for the Japanese people, as sovereigns of the country, to make a judgment on Abe’s decision.
Abe’s foreign policy is focused on militarily and economically encircling and isolating China. While some considers China as a threat, it is Japan’s largest trading partner along with the United States. Many Japanese firms are doing business in China, and Japan’s imports of agricultural products from China are the largest next to those from the U.S. Communicating closely with China in terms of security is indispensable for Japan to coexist with the Asian countries. Because Japan is a resource-poor nation dependent on other countries’ supplies of food and energy, creating tense relations with neighboring nations or conducting military operations overseas would clearly threaten Japanese people’s safety.
Based on the Cabinet decision, defense spending will surely expand while social welfare spending will be cut. People’s life, liberty and properties cannot be protected by military force. Are we going to allow a major shift in postwar security policy and choose to take the path to military power instead of being a peaceful nation? It is the time for each one of us to express our will to the administration for the sake of our own right to life and responsibility to protect future generations.
(July 2, 2014)