Pros And Cons Of Pacifist Constitution
The end of the Second World War with the surrender of Japan marks the defeat of its short-lived imperial expansionist policy, and symbolize the establishment of the new constitution called” pacifist”, with the unnecessary help of the United States. The article 9, one of the most important articles under the framework of this new constitution, prohibited the use of the military forces as a mean of the settling the international disputes and the maintenance of war potential. However, this post-war pride pacifist constitution which has not been revised since it promulgation in 1946 has been recently harmed by the Japan Prime Minister and his ruling party whose plan was to shift it away. (Yaodong , L, 2014). Mr. Abe and his party is preparing
…show more content…
to propose a constitutional amendment to the Diet after the summer election in 2016, but as knowing his big and ambitious plan would be time consuming ,for the amendment need to be passed by the two-third majority of both diets and approved by a majority of a national referendum (Shimbun, A, 2015), he has been pressing forward the re-interpretation of the article 9 in the current sessions of Diet to allow Japan to exercise the right of “ collective self-defense” making the Japan self-defense to play more proactive and significant role regional and internationally and allowing the use of force when the allies were under attacks. (A.Yellen, J., 2014) The further plan of revision and interpretation of the constitution have been still undergoing, which was expected to take a long route till their passes by the assembly. Nevertheless, the main and remained unanswered doubt is what reasons that might trigger Abe to go that far for such changes, lone question that required the judgments of public debates and discussions to find the right answers. Even if answers are no easy to locate, these papers will mainly and specifically discuss about the reasons behind the scenes, which pressured Mr. Abe into changing the decades-old and self-defensive constitution. First of all, the motive of Mr. Abe in proposing the amendments of the constitution is that he believed such changes are necessary for maintaining and strengthening the U.S-Japan alliance. It is outright right to point out that Japan’s re-interpretation of its pacifist constitution, led by Abe, has given Japan authority to maintain its military forces in the name of the self-defense forces, and has allowed Japan to join UN peacekeeping operation abroad.
However, Japan’ ability to cooperate with allies, particularly the U.S, has been largely restricted by some legal factors. The most obvious one, which represent as an obstacle in Mr. Abe’s way and U.S- Japan collaboration , is Article 9 of Japan’ s constitution , which restricted Japan of exercising the collective self-defense or using of forces to defend allies that are under attacks. The realistic example of this is that Japan legally is not allowed to shoot down the missiles that directed at the U.S, and aid the allies’ ships that come under enemy attacks. The Japan’s inability, as Mr. Abe and his government believed, to deploy its troops to support the allies has very serious and negative consequences for the U.S for U.S Japan’s relations. They afraid that if Japan does not show its aims to fight with the U.S, the Washington, will eventually abandon its attempts to protect the disputed Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands against China as one of Abe’s advisor pointed out that “the united states does not want to fight for Senkaku. If Japan, when push comes to shove, does not prepare to work together with the U.S, then the U.S will say goodbye to its participation in the defense of our
islands”. Moreover, It is important to mark that for decades since the end of world war 2, The U.S-Japan alliance is viewed as an unbreakable chain; however, The alliance, in reality, is not strong as viewed, for as a global hegemon, the U.S’s major intention is to maintain, as it argued, the international order or so-called the maintenance of the current balance of power. To put it simply, this term means that the U.S would not tolerate and would use any means to counter the threats to its global dominant power, which it glowing calls the international stability. The most prominence example revealed in the U.S’s initial support to post-war Japan, which aim to transform Japan into a major ally that acted a bulwark against the communism during the cold war. The latter supports, likewise, is also act of balancing power responding to the rise of China. This selfish superpower, thus, had no real intention of helping the others, particularly Japan, but if it does, it is undoubtedly the matter of preserving its own advantages. For Abe, who has been a stalwart of the strong U.S- Japan ties and optimistic about the benefits producing by the close relations, views the changes of constitutions, especially the article 9 to allow the right of collective self-defense as a crucial way so as to either tie the U.S’s interests mainly in Japan or preserve the bond of friendship between the Washington and Tokyo, especially in the recent context when the U.S, more likely Obama, has turned its or his attentions from the Middle East to Asia pacific, the policy called “ the pivot to Asia” or “ rebalance to Asia pacific”, with the aim of countering the rise of China, or more specific its assertiveness in both South and East China seas. According to certain expectation, if the article 9 is to be fully amended, as Abe has planned, Japan could use its MSDF- Japan maritime forces- to defend the U.S navy vessels on high seas, minesweepers to work alongside the U.S in warzone, and the SDF to support U.S’s troops fighting abroad. All of these would certainly result in the intensive improvement of bilateral co-operation.
to propose a constitutional amendment to the Diet after the summer election in 2016, but as knowing his big and ambitious plan would be time consuming ,for the amendment need to be passed by the two-third majority of both diets and approved by a majority of a national referendum (Shimbun, A, 2015), he has been pressing forward the re-interpretation of the article 9 in the current sessions of Diet to allow Japan to exercise the right of “ collective self-defense” making the Japan self-defense to play more proactive and significant role regional and internationally and allowing the use of force when the allies were under attacks. (A.Yellen, J., 2014) The further plan of revision and interpretation of the constitution have been still undergoing, which was expected to take a long route till their passes by the assembly. Nevertheless, the main and remained unanswered doubt is what reasons that might trigger Abe to go that far for such changes, lone question that required the judgments of public debates and discussions to find the right answers. Even if answers are no easy to locate, these papers will mainly and specifically discuss about the reasons behind the scenes, which pressured Mr. Abe into changing the decades-old and self-defensive constitution. First of all, the motive of Mr. Abe in proposing the amendments of the constitution is that he believed such changes are necessary for maintaining and strengthening the U.S-Japan alliance. It is outright right to point out that Japan’s re-interpretation of its pacifist constitution, led by Abe, has given Japan authority to maintain its military forces in the name of the self-defense forces, and has allowed Japan to join UN peacekeeping operation abroad.
However, Japan’ ability to cooperate with allies, particularly the U.S, has been largely restricted by some legal factors. The most obvious one, which represent as an obstacle in Mr. Abe’s way and U.S- Japan collaboration , is Article 9 of Japan’ s constitution , which restricted Japan of exercising the collective self-defense or using of forces to defend allies that are under attacks. The realistic example of this is that Japan legally is not allowed to shoot down the missiles that directed at the U.S, and aid the allies’ ships that come under enemy attacks. The Japan’s inability, as Mr. Abe and his government believed, to deploy its troops to support the allies has very serious and negative consequences for the U.S for U.S Japan’s relations. They afraid that if Japan does not show its aims to fight with the U.S, the Washington, will eventually abandon its attempts to protect the disputed Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands against China as one of Abe’s advisor pointed out that “the united states does not want to fight for Senkaku. If Japan, when push comes to shove, does not prepare to work together with the U.S, then the U.S will say goodbye to its participation in the defense of our
islands”. Moreover, It is important to mark that for decades since the end of world war 2, The U.S-Japan alliance is viewed as an unbreakable chain; however, The alliance, in reality, is not strong as viewed, for as a global hegemon, the U.S’s major intention is to maintain, as it argued, the international order or so-called the maintenance of the current balance of power. To put it simply, this term means that the U.S would not tolerate and would use any means to counter the threats to its global dominant power, which it glowing calls the international stability. The most prominence example revealed in the U.S’s initial support to post-war Japan, which aim to transform Japan into a major ally that acted a bulwark against the communism during the cold war. The latter supports, likewise, is also act of balancing power responding to the rise of China. This selfish superpower, thus, had no real intention of helping the others, particularly Japan, but if it does, it is undoubtedly the matter of preserving its own advantages. For Abe, who has been a stalwart of the strong U.S- Japan ties and optimistic about the benefits producing by the close relations, views the changes of constitutions, especially the article 9 to allow the right of collective self-defense as a crucial way so as to either tie the U.S’s interests mainly in Japan or preserve the bond of friendship between the Washington and Tokyo, especially in the recent context when the U.S, more likely Obama, has turned its or his attentions from the Middle East to Asia pacific, the policy called “ the pivot to Asia” or “ rebalance to Asia pacific”, with the aim of countering the rise of China, or more specific its assertiveness in both South and East China seas. According to certain expectation, if the article 9 is to be fully amended, as Abe has planned, Japan could use its MSDF- Japan maritime forces- to defend the U.S navy vessels on high seas, minesweepers to work alongside the U.S in warzone, and the SDF to support U.S’s troops fighting abroad. All of these would certainly result in the intensive improvement of bilateral co-operation.