The general elections for the more powerful Lower House of Japan are just round the corner. Almost a dozen political parties are participating in the fray. Our Asian neighbours may well be surprised to see that a few of them are calling for a constitutional amendment so that Japan may openly have its Defense forces and be able to fight shoulder to shoulder with the US forces.
Some of them who are spearheading in this direction are even telling us that for the pride of the Japanese the present Constitution should be replaced by one of our own making, as the present one was given by the US occupation forces. You will see that here is already a contradiction in what they say. On one hand they want to be a loyal ally of the US. Any difference of policies, large or small, would upset them. On the other they pay only scGant respect to the present Constitution although it was given by the US. They want to make a new one under the name of an independent, national Constitution.
Let us see a couple of issues here. Is it true that the present Constitution of Japan was just given to us, or enforced upon us, by the Americans? And what is the main point these pro-amendment forces want to put into their Constitution?
Firstly, the American GHQ had studied a number of documents drafted by various Japanese groups before they completed theirs. One of them particularly called their attention. It was a draft Constitution written by a study group of seven liberal-minded professionals. In fact some of the important articles may be said to have been transplanted from this draft. It is therefore wrong to say that the Constitution is simply a translated version of the GHQ handout.
Secondly, those parties who talk of the amendment are particularly keen on revising or even deleting Article 9, which renounces war and prohibits to have armed forces. They say that Japan already has powerful forces which pass as armed forces in the world but we have to call them Self-Defense Forces under the Constitutional constraint. The name should be changed to suit the substance. It is a hypocritical argument. Why can we not change the substance to suit Article 9? With this Article we in fact pledged that we will never fight a war again with our neighbours.
This is a difficult time for Japan, even apart from the Fukushima disaster. If China or DPRK put a restraint on their military activities, it would greatly encourage the peace-loving people of Japan.
Some of them who are spearheading in this direction are even telling us that for the pride of the Japanese the present Constitution should be replaced by one of our own making, as the present one was given by the US occupation forces. You will see that here is already a contradiction in what they say. On one hand they want to be a loyal ally of the US. Any difference of policies, large or small, would upset them. On the other they pay only scGant respect to the present Constitution although it was given by the US. They want to make a new one under the name of an independent, national Constitution.
Let us see a couple of issues here. Is it true that the present Constitution of Japan was just given to us, or enforced upon us, by the Americans? And what is the main point these pro-amendment forces want to put into their Constitution?
Firstly, the American GHQ had studied a number of documents drafted by various Japanese groups before they completed theirs. One of them particularly called their attention. It was a draft Constitution written by a study group of seven liberal-minded professionals. In fact some of the important articles may be said to have been transplanted from this draft. It is therefore wrong to say that the Constitution is simply a translated version of the GHQ handout.
Secondly, those parties who talk of the amendment are particularly keen on revising or even deleting Article 9, which renounces war and prohibits to have armed forces. They say that Japan already has powerful forces which pass as armed forces in the world but we have to call them Self-Defense Forces under the Constitutional constraint. The name should be changed to suit the substance. It is a hypocritical argument. Why can we not change the substance to suit Article 9? With this Article we in fact pledged that we will never fight a war again with our neighbours.
This is a difficult time for Japan, even apart from the Fukushima disaster. If China or DPRK put a restraint on their military activities, it would greatly encourage the peace-loving people of Japan.
No comments:
Post a Comment