May 10, 2014
Akahata editorial (excerpts)
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo on May 6 delivered a speech at NATO headquarters in Brussels, justifying Japan’s future use of the right to collective self-defense.
He said, “[U]nder the current interpretation of the Constitution, even if a U.S. Aegis-equipped vessel on the high seas near Japan on guard against a possible missile launch suffers an armed attack, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are unable to defend it. Our only option is simply to overlook the situation. Is that an appropriate response?”
Many experts, however, see that there is no chance of that happening in the near future because it would take a great deal of resolve to cross swords with the country of overwhelming strike capabilities before deliberately attacking its warship.
Even if an accidental clash occurs by any chance, putting Japan’s nose into the fray would only work to complicate the situation, contributing to hamper the reaching of any settlement.
The consultative council to Abe will soon submit a report proposing that Japan’s exercise of the collective self-defense right be permitted with the prime minister’s decision and prior Diet approval.
Going through procedures to gain Diet approval would be physically impossible at a time when the SDF happens to be protecting a U.S. warship that is suddenly under attack on the high seas.
Furthermore, if the prime minister leaves it up to the on-the-scene discretion of military commanders because of an emergency, it would make it possible for Japan to enter the skirmish without even the nation’s top leader knowledge.
Using protection of U.S. vessels on the high seas as an excuse to open the way for Japan’s use of the right to collective self-defense cannot make sense. Public opinion and movements against any change in the current constitutional interpretation will certainly bring such a false argument to a stop.
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo on May 6 delivered a speech at NATO headquarters in Brussels, justifying Japan’s future use of the right to collective self-defense.
He said, “[U]nder the current interpretation of the Constitution, even if a U.S. Aegis-equipped vessel on the high seas near Japan on guard against a possible missile launch suffers an armed attack, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are unable to defend it. Our only option is simply to overlook the situation. Is that an appropriate response?”
Many experts, however, see that there is no chance of that happening in the near future because it would take a great deal of resolve to cross swords with the country of overwhelming strike capabilities before deliberately attacking its warship.
Even if an accidental clash occurs by any chance, putting Japan’s nose into the fray would only work to complicate the situation, contributing to hamper the reaching of any settlement.
The consultative council to Abe will soon submit a report proposing that Japan’s exercise of the collective self-defense right be permitted with the prime minister’s decision and prior Diet approval.
Going through procedures to gain Diet approval would be physically impossible at a time when the SDF happens to be protecting a U.S. warship that is suddenly under attack on the high seas.
Furthermore, if the prime minister leaves it up to the on-the-scene discretion of military commanders because of an emergency, it would make it possible for Japan to enter the skirmish without even the nation’s top leader knowledge.
Using protection of U.S. vessels on the high seas as an excuse to open the way for Japan’s use of the right to collective self-defense cannot make sense. Public opinion and movements against any change in the current constitutional interpretation will certainly bring such a false argument to a stop.
