| |
Japan's 'peace constitution'
threatened
By Axel Berkofsky
As the head of state, the Emperor should be
ensuring that Japan's military is on the "forefront
establishing and maintaining global peace and
stability". So concluded a report drafted by the Liberal
Democratic Party's (LDP) research commission on the
constitution last week, raising fears in the
neighborhood that Japan plans to turn into a regional
military bully before too long.
The House of
Representatives Research Commission on the Constitution
was established in 2000 in an effort to revise the
constitution to authorize the military to defend Japan's
security at home and abroad.
A few days after
the controversial report leaked to the press, the LDP
defused the draft for a revised constitution, announcing
that the Emperor will remain the "symbol of state" for
now.
To ensure that Japan will remain a
democracy and not turn into a military dictatorship with
the Emperor calling the shots, the report introduces a
separate chapter on popular sovereignty, keeping
Japanese citizens from turning into overly submissive
subjects for now.
The report, the left-leaning
daily Mainichi Shimbun warns, "proposes radical changes
to the country's constitution" enabling the prime
minister to send soldiers out to fight "just like
Japan's wartime Emperor used to do". The report's
suggestion to equip the prime minister with the
authority to invoke a "national emergency order" is
alarmingly similar to the martial law the Emperor
declared under Japan's Imperial Constitution, the
Mainichi maintains.
But as far as the ruling LDP
is concerned, getting rid of the constitution's
war-renouncing Article 9 and using military force in
certain situations to establish peace and stability
isn't incongruent with Japan being a "pacifist and
peace-loving nation".
"Japan is asked to take a
leading role in forming international order even if the
use of force is part of that assignment," reads the
report, suggesting getting rid of the self-imposed ban
on executing the right to collective self-defense once
and for all.
Many commentators in Japan,
however, think that worrying about this ban has become
unnecessary, claiming that deploying troops and ships to
the Indian Ocean to support the US war against
Afghanistan is pretty much executing the right to
collective self-defense anyway. "All Mr Koizumi needs to
do is to say that it can be done," summarized ex-prime
minister Yasuhiro Nakasone on Japanese television very
recently.
Knowing that the majority of the
Japanese public, reluctant to throw overboard what is
left of Japanese pacifism, thinks that the prime
minister should do no such thing, the LDP plans to
exclude the public, it turns out. Whereas until now a
two-thirds majority in both chambers of the parliament
needs to be followed by a majority vote in a referendum
to change the constitution, the reports plans to cut the
process short by taking the referendum off the agenda.
The liberal Asahi Shimbun joins the critics,
claiming that Article 9 and indeed the constitution's
"pacifist spirit" not only oblige Japan to stay away
from the battlefield but oblige the country to persuade
others to do the same thing. "Article 9 does not mean
that Japan wants to avoid war and other countries can do
whatever they want" the paper writes.
Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi wants to get rid of Article 9
all the same, and North Korea and international
terrorism are to blame as far as he is concerned.
"Discussions should focus on Article 9, given the
tensions on the Korean Peninsula and changes in Japan's
contribution to international affairs," he said, putting
on his "I know what's good for Japan" face on Japanese
television.
Music to the ears of Japan's Defense
Agency, which did its share trying to put the prime
minister in charge if North Korea launched a missile
attack on Japan.
The agency suggested
"simplifying" (read: excluding cautious lawmakers) the
procedures under which the prime minister can order
"countermeasures" (a counterattack, hope the defense
hawks) when the country is under attack.
If the
military gets its way, the parliament would be sidelined
and only "requested" to endorse the cabinet's decision
to shoot back. Not much time to discuss the pro and cons
of countermeasures anyway, says the military, warning
that North Korean Nodong missiles can reach Japanese
territory in less than 10 minutes.
Over recent
months, shooting down (North Korean) missiles was high
on the agenda of Japan's security policy and the
military's eyes usually opened wide with delight every
time the words "missile defense" got mentioned.
Deploying the system, however, will take another
couple of years and for now it remains a challenging
task to figure out what exactly Japan's military wants
to do if Pyongyang decides to run amok earlier than
that. Whereas attacking North Korea preemptively seemed
an option for Japan's military only very recently, its
main task will now be reduced to clearing up the mess
after North Korean missiles hit Japanese territory, it
seems. "If a missile hits Japan, our action will be
limited to minimizing the damage," Defense Agency chief
Shigeru Ishiba said, adding that Japan does not have the
offensive capabilities to launch a counterattack on
North Korea anyway.
While changing the
fundamentals of Japan's defense policy, the "national
emergency laws", a package of three laws instructing the
armed forces what to do in the case of an attack on
Japan, were put back on the agenda.
The Diet
started discussing the laws more than two years ago and
the LDP's most recent version of the package seems to
suggest that the military could be mobilized even before
Japan is under attack. The bills formulate two
contingencies, a "military attack" as well as an
"anticipated military attack situation" authorizing the
military to fight if the prime minister says so.
"Anticipated military attack" is alarmingly close to
"attacking preemptively", warns the political
opposition, and the New Komeito, the LDP's biggest
coalition partner, is also strongly opposed to letting
Japan pull the trigger before the enemy does.
The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the
country's biggest opposition party, doesn't trust
Koizumi or his aides and wants to oblige the government
to involve the parliament before Japan goes off to war.
The cabinet's decision on how to handle incoming
missiles from North Korean missiles, requests the DPJ,
should be followed by a Diet resolution necessary to
keep the government's level of belligerency in check.
Meddling with the government's authority is for
the government, of course.
"It would seem
inconceivable under a parliamentary cabinet system for
government measures to be completed by the Diet," said
Fumio Kyuma, executive member of the House of
Representatives special committee last week. Snubbing
the Diet didn't go down too well with the DPJ and Kyuma
was obliged to hint at the possibility of caving in for
the sake of getting the bills through the parliament at
all.
"The idea to include the parliament is not
something we will reject completely," he promised,
admitting that Japan's moving away from pacifist to
"normal" military power in less than two years is
unlikely to make everybody happy inside and outside
Japan.
China and South Korea for a start have
promised to keep an eye on what they fear could become
an all too trigger-happy neighbor who turns to
formulating security policy via the megaphone every now
and then.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co,
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
