Then what would be Japan's position with regard to the emerging situation in the Middle East as described in the previous column? It is not possible to discuss it without reference to the US policy toward the region. Mr. Obama is scheduled to announce his new, or new but old, policy in a day or two, on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary. So here we will present our opinion on the basis of some hypothesis concerning the Japan-US relations.
We have discussed how the UN Charter defines the concept of 'self-defence' several times already. It refers both to the right of the individual self-defence and the collective self-defence. It has been the policy of the Japanese Government that Japan has the right of the former and can exercise it by the Self-Defence Forces(SDF), but cannot exercise the latter in view of Article 9 of the Constitution although she possesses it.
But the Article 9 says that we will not resort to war. We will not have any war potential. And we will deny the right of belligerency. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is doubtful if Japan has even the right of the individual self-defence, let alone of the collective self-defence. Almost all the wars in modern history, not only of Japan, have been fought in the beautiful name of self-defence. According to the Government's view, however, almost everything is allowed even under this Article, except to wage war together with some allies. This is exactly what the present Abe Government has wanted to make possible.
Therefore they have adopted in the Cabinet meeting on 1 July this year a document in order to, in their eyes, fill the gap. This lengthy document states toward its end that 'not only in case of an armed attack on Japan, but also in case of an armed attack on another country in close relations with Japan which would endanger the existence of our country, it will be allowed by the Constitution to use force to the minimum degree to expel the said danger if there is no other way to do so'.(translation by this writer)
Thus the Government has introduced a grave change in the interpretation of the Article 9. It has publicly proclaimed that Japan will go to war for the sake of other country or countries. The document adds that in terms of international law such action may be based on the right of collective self-defence. The Cabinet decision has become known widely in the nation as one that has made the right of collective self-defence exercisable, and as such been very unpopular. But the document itself has placed its emphasis on the interpretation of the Constitution, and not on the application of the UN Charter. This leads us to suspect that the document itself is part of the preparation for the revision of the Article 9, which in the opinion of many has been the framework of the post-war Japan. That means this is effectively a Constitutional amendment.
What should be emphasized here is that the above statement on the use of force refers to no geographical limit. It may well include the Middle East. The close country to Japan is another name of the US. Suppose the US puts pressure on Japan to be a part of the new anti-ISIS coalition? We will watch Obama's 9/11 speech carefully. Hopefully it will be worth serious consideration.
We have discussed how the UN Charter defines the concept of 'self-defence' several times already. It refers both to the right of the individual self-defence and the collective self-defence. It has been the policy of the Japanese Government that Japan has the right of the former and can exercise it by the Self-Defence Forces(SDF), but cannot exercise the latter in view of Article 9 of the Constitution although she possesses it.
But the Article 9 says that we will not resort to war. We will not have any war potential. And we will deny the right of belligerency. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is doubtful if Japan has even the right of the individual self-defence, let alone of the collective self-defence. Almost all the wars in modern history, not only of Japan, have been fought in the beautiful name of self-defence. According to the Government's view, however, almost everything is allowed even under this Article, except to wage war together with some allies. This is exactly what the present Abe Government has wanted to make possible.
Therefore they have adopted in the Cabinet meeting on 1 July this year a document in order to, in their eyes, fill the gap. This lengthy document states toward its end that 'not only in case of an armed attack on Japan, but also in case of an armed attack on another country in close relations with Japan which would endanger the existence of our country, it will be allowed by the Constitution to use force to the minimum degree to expel the said danger if there is no other way to do so'.(translation by this writer)
Thus the Government has introduced a grave change in the interpretation of the Article 9. It has publicly proclaimed that Japan will go to war for the sake of other country or countries. The document adds that in terms of international law such action may be based on the right of collective self-defence. The Cabinet decision has become known widely in the nation as one that has made the right of collective self-defence exercisable, and as such been very unpopular. But the document itself has placed its emphasis on the interpretation of the Constitution, and not on the application of the UN Charter. This leads us to suspect that the document itself is part of the preparation for the revision of the Article 9, which in the opinion of many has been the framework of the post-war Japan. That means this is effectively a Constitutional amendment.
What should be emphasized here is that the above statement on the use of force refers to no geographical limit. It may well include the Middle East. The close country to Japan is another name of the US. Suppose the US puts pressure on Japan to be a part of the new anti-ISIS coalition? We will watch Obama's 9/11 speech carefully. Hopefully it will be worth serious consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment