We will come back to the US-Japan military alliance and see how it really damages Japan's relations with her neighbours.
Three days ago, on 24 April, the Japanese government refused to sign a South African-sponsored resolution before a meeting of a committee, held at Geneva, in connection with rethinking of the NPT(Non-Proliferation Treaty). The resolution said that it would be in the best interest of the humanity not to use nuclear weapons 'under any circumstances', and it was to these words that Japan opposed. It startled and angered many countries who signed it. It also startled and angered many people in Japan. Countries like the US, Russia and China also failed to sign. Japan therefore put herself together with them, particularly with the US.
Japan's Cabinet Secretary(a politician and not a bureaucrat) said in explanation of the decision that it was taken considering the difficult security environment in Asia. He is suggesting here the possibility of the US using such weapons against some Asian country/countries. He is also implying that in case hostilities begin Japan would automatically support such action. Therefore the government is not conforming to that resolution.
Let me tell the readers here a very strange thing. Mr.Abe Shinzo's ruling LDP(Liberal Democratic Party)has published their draft Constitution. The Article 9 of the present Constitution, with its provision of non-possession of war potential, has been made almost unrecognizable, as they want to introduce a provision for a National Defence Forces. What is strange is that nowhere in the draft is stated who has the right to declare war. Does it mean that the said Forces are supposed to fight on the side of the US Forces as their auxiliary? That is the only plausible explanation.
With this in mind they want to revise first Article 96, which says that an amendment, before it is placed before a referendum, should be approved by a two third majority in both Houses of the Parliament. Their draft says that a simple majority is enough, justifying it by saying that it would bring the Constitution nearer to the people. What a hypocritical way of saying it! Their real target is Article 9, and in order to reach there Article 96 is, in their view, blocking the way. More haste, less speed?
Three days ago, on 24 April, the Japanese government refused to sign a South African-sponsored resolution before a meeting of a committee, held at Geneva, in connection with rethinking of the NPT(Non-Proliferation Treaty). The resolution said that it would be in the best interest of the humanity not to use nuclear weapons 'under any circumstances', and it was to these words that Japan opposed. It startled and angered many countries who signed it. It also startled and angered many people in Japan. Countries like the US, Russia and China also failed to sign. Japan therefore put herself together with them, particularly with the US.
Japan's Cabinet Secretary(a politician and not a bureaucrat) said in explanation of the decision that it was taken considering the difficult security environment in Asia. He is suggesting here the possibility of the US using such weapons against some Asian country/countries. He is also implying that in case hostilities begin Japan would automatically support such action. Therefore the government is not conforming to that resolution.
Let me tell the readers here a very strange thing. Mr.Abe Shinzo's ruling LDP(Liberal Democratic Party)has published their draft Constitution. The Article 9 of the present Constitution, with its provision of non-possession of war potential, has been made almost unrecognizable, as they want to introduce a provision for a National Defence Forces. What is strange is that nowhere in the draft is stated who has the right to declare war. Does it mean that the said Forces are supposed to fight on the side of the US Forces as their auxiliary? That is the only plausible explanation.
With this in mind they want to revise first Article 96, which says that an amendment, before it is placed before a referendum, should be approved by a two third majority in both Houses of the Parliament. Their draft says that a simple majority is enough, justifying it by saying that it would bring the Constitution nearer to the people. What a hypocritical way of saying it! Their real target is Article 9, and in order to reach there Article 96 is, in their view, blocking the way. More haste, less speed?
No comments:
Post a Comment