Koizumi advocates right of collective self-defense for Japan

New Liberal Democratic Party president Koizumi Jun'ichiro is an open advocate of Japan's right to collective self-defense, which the postwar governments have so far regarded as unconstitutional. The election campaign by the four candidates who all favored a constitutional revision was about "who is the most hawkish" on the question of the Constitution.

Akahata of April 25 reported how Koizumi's hawkish remarks are escalating day by day as follows:.

In the early stages of the LDP presidential election, Koizumi said that for the government to approve the right to collective self-defense without amending the Constitution is too problematic. (Sankei Shimbun, April 14th issue)

But, he withdrew this statement on April 22, saying that the government should not cling to the position it set out 40 years ago. This indicates that Koizumi supports the argument that the government should exercise the right to collective self-defense only by making some changes in constitutional interpretations.

Japan's government has argued that it is unconstitutional for Japan to use the right to collective self-defense in the event of a military attack against Japan's allies and friends. This argument has helped prevent Japan from directly taking part in U.S. overseas military operations, although Japan has agreed to carry out "rear area support" for the U.S. Forces.

Recently, the U.S. government has increased its pressure on Japan to remove the "constitutional brake," and the LDP responded by increasing the number of LDP members who favor constitutional revision.

Koizumi has also made hawkish arguments on other issues. For example, the call for a constitutional amendment under the pretext of introducing a direct election system for the prime minister, official worship at Yasukuni Shrine, and support for the Japan visit by Li Teng-hui, Taiwan's former president.

Koizumi's hawkish remarks suggest that the new LDP government under Koizumi has a dangerous scheme to jump over the barrier obstructing its preparations for a substantial war cooperation with the U.S., which has so far failed thanks to constitutional constraints. (end)