Editorial: Mainichi opposes reinterpretation of Constitution for collective self-defense
02/07/2014 | Mainichi Shimbun
The Cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is set to approve a decision on July 1 to reinterpret war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution to open the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense.
In reflecting on the last war in which a massive number of people were killed in Japan as well as its Asian neighbors, Article 9 of the postwar Constitution has banned Japan from using force overseas. The Cabinet decision will fundamentally change the principles of the clause and allow the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to use force abroad in the name of "self-defensive measures." The move could drastically change Japan's fundamental policy.
The Cabinet decision is tantamount to revising Article 9 by fundamentally changing the government's official interpretation of the clause. Such reinterpretation is impermissible and we oppose the move.
A dramatic policy change like the upcoming one should not be decided by the Cabinet of the day alone. The Abe government should rather propose to the public that Article 9 be revised.
The Abe administration should have sufficiently explained why it is now necessary to open the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense since the issue is vital to the lives of not only SDF members but also members of the general public.
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Abe only told the public that Japan needs to exercise this right to protect people's lives and livelihoods amid the rapidly changing security environment.
Why does Japan need to exercise this right to that end? Is it insufficient to create and amend legislation on security to respond to contingencies within the framework of the right to individual self-defense, which the government interprets the Constitution allows Japan to exercise? Abe and other top government officials have failed to provide any convincing explanation to answer these questions.
Eight scenarios of operations that the government claims that Japan can conduct only by exercising the right to collective self-defense, such as guarding U.S. military vessels and minesweeping, were supposed to answer these questions. However, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) that claimed that Japan must exercise the right to collective self-defense to launch these operations, remained at odds with its coalition partner New Komeito, which argued that Japan can respond to these situations merely by exercising the right to individual self-defense and police authority.
As such, members of the ruling coalition's consultative body on security policies abandoned in-depth studies of the eight scenarios and chose to hastily make a Cabinet decision to open the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense. The LDP and New Komeito are desperate to draw a conclusion on the issue now apparently because no major election will be held in the near future.
The two parties did not spend much time discussing the so-called "gray-zone" contingencies, or emergency situations that have fallen short of developing into armed conflicts such as an armed group landing on Okinawa's Senkaku Islands, which are also claimed by China. Moreover, expansion of Japan's logistic support for multinational forces to be formed under a U.N. resolution and SDF members' guarding of peacekeepers from other countries who come under attack will be incorporated in the Cabinet decision although ruling coalition policymakers had only half-baked debate on these issues.
What Abe wanted to do is apparently open the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense as part of efforts to achieve his long-cherished goal of departing from the postwar regime, rather than reform Japan's security policy by having thorough debate on the issue.
The upcoming decision, in addition to the enactment of the special state secrets protection legislation late last year and the relaxation of the arms exports ban this past spring are aimed also at militarily integrating Japan and the United States.
It is regrettable that the government is trying to quickly draw a conclusion on such a crucial policy issue without sufficient discussions.
Government officials emphasize that the decision will allow Japan to exercise the right only in a limited manner. However, how to put the brakes on expanding the scope of operations that the SDF can conduct by exercising this right will be left to the discretion of the Cabinet of the day.
Three new criteria for Japan to use force as self-defensive measures, which are the core of the Cabinet decision, state that Japan can exercise the right to collective self-defense only if there is "imminent danger of the people's rights being fundamentally overturned."
A list of potential questions and answers on exercising the right to collective self-defense, drawn up by the government, states that Japan can use force not only in exercising the right but also in U.N.-led collective security arrangements if the government deems the three new criteria are met. Therefore, the question and answer list clearly proves our argument that what the government calls "the exercising of the right to collective self-defense in a limited manner" is not true.
Moreover, what is limited is the scope of operations that Japan can conduct by exercising this right, and once SDF troops launch operations, there will be no limit to what they can do.
The prime minister asserts that exercising the right to collective self-defense will help enhance Japan's deterrence and lessen the chance that Japan will be dragged into war. If the Japan-U.S. alliance is strengthened by opening the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense, it will certainly be effective as a deterrence to a certain extent. However, there are fears that it could rather heighten regional tensions and that Japan could be dragged into unjust war after failing to refuse to comply with a request from the United States for deployment of SDF troops. SDF members could kill other humans or get killed on the battlefield. The prime minister has not talked about such risks at all.
The basis for reinterpreting the Constitution is also problematic. The government cherry-picked its 1972 view on the right to self-defense to reverse the conclusion that the Constitution does not allow Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense.
The government claims that the decision is a conclusion that has been drawn within the framework of the basic logic of the 1972 government view, and that it is rectification of the interpretation of the Constitution, and does not amount to effective revision to the Constitution by changing its interpretation. However, it is nothing but a revision of Article 9 by fundamentally reinterpreting it.
Japan has enacted the International Peace Cooperation Law, the Act on Special Measures against Terrorism and the Act on Special Measures concerning Humanitarian Relief and Reconstruction work and Security Assistance in Iraq to expand the SDF's activities overseas in response to changes in the security environment following the end of the Cold War. Thus, Japan had pursued ways to strengthen the Japan-U.S. alliance and extend contributions to the international community without running counter to the canonicity of Article 9 that banned Japan from using force overseas.
The Abe Cabinet is about to overstep the boundary, which past administrations had not transgressed, only after having discussion for a little over a month. It is totally unacceptable for the government to decide to drastically change the security policy without sufficiently explaining why Japan needs to exercise the right to collective self-defense, measures to put the brakes on such operations, risks involving the use of this right and its legal basis.
.
July 01, 2014(Mainichi Japan)