Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution confines Japanese military action. This has meant since the end of WWII and the commissioning of this Constitution under the rebuilding of Japan led by General MacArthur that Japan did not maintain a standing air force, army, or navy. A small self-defense force was established. recently the Japanese announced the intention to export military hardware to other countries. Now Prime Minister Abe is in Singapore saying this:
"Japan intends to play an even greater and more proactive role than it has until now in making peace in Asia and the world more certain," Abe said.
Japan is also apparently working to increase its military development for the purpose of potentially deploying troops in Southeast Asia. You can read the full article here. But the following paragraph is the one that strikes me as most significant.
Abe's government has been trying to ease constitutional restraints on Japan's military, which currently can only be used in its own self-defense. He says Japan's pacifist constitution restricts its global contributions and should be revised, but that for now its war-renouncing Article 9 should be interpreted more broadly to allow Japan's military to help defend foreign troops. The government relaxed arms export rules in April.
For my two cents allowing Japanese troops to engage in missions outside of Japan can in now way be deemed as a broad interpretation of article 9. Since section 2 (see below) says forces will never be maintained, how can it be reinterpreted to allow "forces" be used to help defend foreign troops unless those foreign troops are on Japanese soil defending the Japanese? I just do not see how short of amending article 9 the Japanese can say using troops outside of Japan is constitutional.
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
"Japan intends to play an even greater and more proactive role than it has until now in making peace in Asia and the world more certain," Abe said.
Japan is also apparently working to increase its military development for the purpose of potentially deploying troops in Southeast Asia. You can read the full article here. But the following paragraph is the one that strikes me as most significant.
Abe's government has been trying to ease constitutional restraints on Japan's military, which currently can only be used in its own self-defense. He says Japan's pacifist constitution restricts its global contributions and should be revised, but that for now its war-renouncing Article 9 should be interpreted more broadly to allow Japan's military to help defend foreign troops. The government relaxed arms export rules in April.
For my two cents allowing Japanese troops to engage in missions outside of Japan can in now way be deemed as a broad interpretation of article 9. Since section 2 (see below) says forces will never be maintained, how can it be reinterpreted to allow "forces" be used to help defend foreign troops unless those foreign troops are on Japanese soil defending the Japanese? I just do not see how short of amending article 9 the Japanese can say using troops outside of Japan is constitutional.
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
No comments:
Post a Comment