kempo

Japan Press Service Co., Ltd. is the only news agency providing information of progressive, democratic movements in Japan

DPJ echoes dangerous LDP call for constitutional revision

The Democratic Party of Japan's panel discussing the Constitution on October 31 finalized its proposal that includes national security issues that would call for amending Article 9, which is a focal issue in the constitutional debates.

The DPJ initially planned to finalize the proposal by the end of March 2006, but the DPJ apparently is now trying to catch up with the Liberal Democratic Party which published its draft of a new constitution on October 28.

The DPJ proposal clearly sets out the right of self-defense to get rid of Article 9's paragraph 2 of the present Constitution that prohibits Japan from possessing war potential and going to war.

The DPJ proposal stated that the limited right of self-defense under the United Nations Charter should be defined in the Constitution. This refers to restrictions that Article 51 of the U.N. Charter imposes on member states in exercising the right of self-defense. Article 51 stipulates: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The right of individual self-defense means that a country has the right to make a counterattack if it is attacked by force. In contrast, the right of collective self-defense allows a country to make a counterattack if a military ally is attacked, even though it has not been attacked. This will enable Japan to participate in wars if the United States, its military ally, is attacked. In such a situation, Japan will be allowed to use force abroad in the name of self-defense.

Under paragraph two of the Constitution, Article 9 banning Japan's war potential and denying Japan the right of belligerency, exercising the right of collective self-defense has been regarded as illegal. The DPJ apparently intends to remove the binding under this provision by deliberately avoiding distinguishing the issue of individual self-defense from collective right of self-defense.

The DPJ panel also makes it clear that Article 9 should be amended with the aim of allowing Japan to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces abroad in the name of "U.N. activity for collective security" pretext. In fact, the DPJ proposal calls for the new draft to state, "(SDF) are allowed to participate in U.N. multinational forces, peace keeping operations, and other activities. The SDF in relevant activities may use force."

The DPJ set forth this provision as the foundation of the party's constitutional amendment proposal. How changes in paragraph two of Article 9 should be or how the possession of armed forces should be defined" remains to be settled. The problem is that the DPJ proposal echoes the Liberal Democratic Party's call for the elimination of Article 9.

Accelerates constitutional debates

The DPJ proposal also tries to justify its call for constitutional revision by stating that the task now is to "prevent the Constitution from being perverted through interpretational amendments or to get the Constitution back into the people's hands." It is aimed at embellishing the party's arguments calling for constitutional revision in tune with the reality of the SDF and the Japan-U.S. military alliance. The DPJ does not offer any convincing explanation to the public as to why amending Article 9 will mean taking the Constitution back to the people. The majority in a public opinion survey are opposed to amending Article 9.

Objections were expressed in the DPJ panel's general assembly on October 31 to the proposal concerning the issues of the right of collective self-defense and Japan's use of force in U.N. activities for collective security. Thus, the DPJ was obliged to defer making a decision until further discussion. However, the DPJ proposal says nothing about this.

On the whole, the DPJ is trying to appease the United States that claims, "Article 9 constitutes an obstacle to the Japan-U.S. alliance." The proposal is dangerous in that it will accelerate calls for constitutional revision. -- Akahata, November 2, 2005