February 16, 2015
The Liberal Democratic and Komei parties on February 13 restarted a discussion on improving security-related legislation in line with the unconstitutional Cabinet decision that lifts the ban on Japan’s use of the collective self-defense right.
Clause 1 of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution stipulates that the Japanese people renounce war, and Clause 2 demands that military potentials not be maintained. The two clauses deny Japan’s use of force for any purpose, including self-defense.
To exercise the collective self-defense right is to make a counterattack along with its allies, the United States in particular, even though Japan is not being attacked. Under Article 9 which prohibits Japan from using force even to defend itself, the Cabinet decision is unacceptable as it will pave the way for Japan’s participation in wars which may have nothing or little to do with this country.
Successive governments have maintained the position that Japan legally possesses the Self-Defense Forces on the ground that the SDF are the minimum necessary level of forces needed to defend the nation, and not military forces which are prohibited by the Constitution. In accordance with this position, the government stance was that Japan cannot exercise the collective self-defense right as it does not possess the military capacity to be regarded as an offensive military force by the international community.
The focal point of the LDP’s draft for constitutional amendments in 2012 was to remove Clause 2 of Article 9. This shows that the LDP was aware that the use of the collective self-defense right violates Article 9.
Both the Cabinet decision and attempts to give shape to it are totally unconstitutional. People’s calls for the withdrawal of the Cabinet decision represent the spirit of the Constitution calling for no more war.
Clause 1 of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution stipulates that the Japanese people renounce war, and Clause 2 demands that military potentials not be maintained. The two clauses deny Japan’s use of force for any purpose, including self-defense.
To exercise the collective self-defense right is to make a counterattack along with its allies, the United States in particular, even though Japan is not being attacked. Under Article 9 which prohibits Japan from using force even to defend itself, the Cabinet decision is unacceptable as it will pave the way for Japan’s participation in wars which may have nothing or little to do with this country.
Successive governments have maintained the position that Japan legally possesses the Self-Defense Forces on the ground that the SDF are the minimum necessary level of forces needed to defend the nation, and not military forces which are prohibited by the Constitution. In accordance with this position, the government stance was that Japan cannot exercise the collective self-defense right as it does not possess the military capacity to be regarded as an offensive military force by the international community.
The focal point of the LDP’s draft for constitutional amendments in 2012 was to remove Clause 2 of Article 9. This shows that the LDP was aware that the use of the collective self-defense right violates Article 9.
Both the Cabinet decision and attempts to give shape to it are totally unconstitutional. People’s calls for the withdrawal of the Cabinet decision represent the spirit of the Constitution calling for no more war.
