Forum

Given the political leanings of the folks in power, I'd think that actual security concerns are less important to them than potential glory(the former mostly being a way to get people to agree to the adventurism they want).

I don't much like the idea of repealing article nine, which is predictable given my non-interventionist leanings, especially not by Shinzō Abe, even if his is Japan's Michael Dukakis, and his bunch of reactionary fun-time funsters. They've talked about other fun things, like rescinding Japan's apologies for its atrocities in Asia during the war.

Bear in mind that the Japanese constitution was written by seventeen officers and eight civilians under the direction of brigadier general Courtnery Whitney. Only one of those people, the late Beate Sirota, was familiar with Japanese culture and spoke Japanese. The origin of article nine is uncertain; some claim that it came from MacArthur, others suggest that it was Whitney's innovation that MacArthur signed off on (much like the basic program for the constitution) and a few even credit it to Emperor Hirohito.

It's also relevant to understand that the LDP and its coalition partner, the New Kōmeitō, won a super-majority (325/480) in the House of Representatives last December in Japan's 'nothing election'. As it stands, only their lack of a majority of the House of Councillors, which will see half its seats up for election in the summer, impedes proposing amendmends as they require a 2/3rds majority of both houses followed by a majority in a public referendum. They also wish to lower this bar. Japan has never amended a constitution since the Meiji Constitution of 1889. (Well, technically the Constitution of 1947 was presented as an amendment to the Meiji Constitution, but pfffft)

There is probably reason to amend the constitution to reflect reality and provide for peace-keeping operations, but some of the LDP's proposals are dangerous. As it stands, the constitutionality of the self-defense force is dubious (some left-wing parties consider it outright unconstitutional), but they won't, of course, be disbanded. The self-defense forces were originally created as military police during the Korean War and remain technically branches of the police. They operate under certain pretences to appear compliant with the constitution's restrictions, such as not using some weapon systems that are deemed 'offensive weapons'.

The LDP has been keen to amend the constitution for a while. A suggestion as to why this would be bad comes from Professor Tokujin Matsudaira:

Tokujin Matsudaira wrote:

Should it occur, constitutional revision in Japan will have serious regional consequences. Not only will it draw China closer to North Korea, but South Korea too will turn toward China to hedge the Japanese threat—while Japan’s right-wing government and LDP, who consider themselves the only legitimate agent of the US interest in the East Asia, will rely on the “US-Japan alliance” to overcome the international isolation they will be faced with. This will put the US into a bind.

Japan was an overbearing regional power in the first half of the twentieth century; repealing article nine might give an appearance of trying to reassert its position, spooking its neighbors. Given the ongoing dispute over the Senkaku Islands, which the LDP have been flogging, and North Korea's weird tantrums, adding that to the mixture seems unwise.

Removing article 9 probably has to do with preparation for an attack from North Korea. They already have installed patriot missile defense systems in Tokyo to protect from a nuclear strike. BUT if that strike did happen I would imagine just like any other country that gets hit with tragedy they would want it paid back in blood .

walw6pK4Alo wrote:

Time to rewatch Patlabor 2.

Canadian reinforcements are useless!

Anyone who thinks that article 9 or any agreement, treaty, entente or detente has any weight is fooling themselves. It is little more than a piece of paper. If Japan wanted to go to war they would simply go to war, just like Hitler simply tossed aside Versailles and really no one would do anything, even if it wasn't 2013 and what seems to be the biggest threat to Japan is the dispute with China over ownership of some islands.

mdo7 wrote:

I had no idea and wasn't aware that PM Abe wanted to remove article 9 from the constitution. I don't see why they need to remove it

I know right! Maybe they're getting greedy

Ginsan wrote:

mdo7 wrote:

I had no idea and wasn't aware that PM Abe wanted to remove article 9 from the constitution. I don't see why they need to remove it

I know right! Maybe they're getting greedy

That or Scumbagyoshi quote this:

ScumbagYoshi wrote:

Not to much recent tensions with North Korea and China probably contributed to this.

Anyway I'm not quite sure for the reason, it's possible tension between China over the Senkaku/Daioyu Island and the threat from North Korea could be the reason. I need some more info on this, hopefully the State Department spokeperson, Victoria Nuland could fill in that answer for us.

Sky_Renzokuken wrote:

Removing article 9 probably has to do with preparation for an attack from North Korea. They already have installed patriot missile defense systems in Tokyo to protect from a nuclear strike. BUT if that strike did happen I would imagine just like any other country that gets hit with tragedy they would want it paid back in blood .

Yeah, I remember hearing about that and seeing those footages of patriot missile system being placed in cities and vulnerable area on NHK World and Arirang News on my TV. Japan is taking North Korea crazy rhetoric seriously.

They can start war as long as US allow them to do so. that's Basically article 9

I'm quite aware of this Article 9 and issues. This has been building up for many months now, and it's coming to a head because of territorial island disputes with China and South Korea and even Taiwan, countries sending ships to disputed waters almost every other day leading to altercations, and now North Korea test-firing missiles for nuclear ICBMs and threatening to scrap the truce.

I don't see how removing Article 9 will achieve anything that can benefit Japan tangibly.

So you have China and North Korea rattling their sabres, that's why you have a self-defence force, and one of the most advanced one at that. So defend your damn country. When push comes to shove simply let America do the invading/retaliating since they've got quite the knack for it.

So what if Article 9 is repealed? Would Japan send their own countrymen to their deaths? Try teaching these new breeds the concept of honour and the samurai spirit. The soldiers might be fine with it, how about their families and loved ones, and the rest of the country, in this day and age?

The proposition is wholly unrealistic and despite the Article's history, it doesn't reflect the reality of the current geopolitical climate. It's simply a political maneuvre by Abe to strengthen his footing in the LDP.

Helius wrote:

I don't see how removing Article 9 will achieve anything that can benefit Japan tangibly.

So you have China and North Korea rattling their sabres, that's why you have a self-defence force, and one of the most advanced one at that. So defend your damn country. When push comes to shove simply let America do the invading/retaliating since they've got quite the knack for it.

They don't want to depend on America for everything. America is taking mainly a hands-off approach on the island disputes (don't want to too much rattle China, a major trading partner, and South Korea and Taiwan, fellow allies). They want the certainty that they could defend themselves if need be. They don't want to be the one left behind by their neighbors' advancements (China finally has an aircraft carrier; South Korea could go nuclear if North Korea further threatens SK).

Helius wrote:

I don't see how removing Article 9 will achieve anything that can benefit Japan tangibly.

So you have China and North Korea rattling their sabres, that's why you have a self-defence force, and one of the most advanced one at that. So defend your damn country. When push comes to shove simply let America do the invading/retaliating since they've got quite the knack for it.

So what if Article 9 is repealed? Would Japan send their own countrymen to their deaths? Try teaching these new breeds the concept of honour and the samurai spirit. The soldiers might be fine with it, how about their families and loved ones, and the rest of the country, in this day and age?

The proposition is wholly unrealistic and despite the Article's history, it doesn't reflect the reality of the current geopolitical climate. It's simply a political maneuvre by Abe to strengthen his footing in the LDP.

You make it sound like Japan wants America to be fully involved in East Asian affairs.

mdo7 wrote:

That or Scumbagyoshi quote this:

ScumbagYoshi wrote:

Not to much recent tensions with North Korea and China probably contributed to this.

Derp, I had a typo. T__T;

ScumbagYoshi wrote:

You make it sound like Japan wants America to be fully involved in East Asian affairs.

That's actually the preferred outcome as far as Japan is concerned. Unlike many other countries, Japan is not as keen to exert its influence to the rest of the world. They're quite happy to be their own prosperous, inconspicuous selves.

The US presence is a good deterrent vis-a-vis Japan's neighbours. The sort of discontent in relation to US bases stationed there is mainly societal and the Japanese government values the alliance just as much as the US needs the stop-gap to East Asia. Moreover, why waste further money on an already inflated defence budget when you already have a powerful ally who does most of the work "maintaining peace and security" in the region?

As enurtsol said China is a major world trader so neither Japan nor the US wants to antagonise the Chinese and Japan would be in a better bargaining position with the backing of the Americans than they would be on their own. The status quo would also be in their favour which is why China has been trying so hard to isolate the various disputes in the region without US involvment lest the whole East/South East Asia encroaches on them.

Spotlesseden wrote:

They can start war as long as US allow them to do so. that's Basically article 9

Erm, no. They can defend against attacks, nothing more.

Scormio wrote:

Repealing the anti-war clause isn't about going to war or not, it's trying to show that Japan is an independent nation (aka, not just a quasi-protectorate of the United States like it was for a decade or two after WWII). It's not like the prime minister overnight decided that Japan should be some warkhawk nation.

PM Abe is a reactionary revisionist, and has most likely hated article 9 for all of his life. He's visited the Yasukuni shrine even though the Emperor asked him not to. He'd probably like to refloat the Yamato and sail it over to sink the Missouri & blow apart the Arizona @ Pearl Harbour one more time.

Anti_Nadalista wrote:

[Troll post removed]

Japan tried going toe to toe with the US in 1941-45. We all know the result of that.

Anti_Nadalista wrote:

[Troll post removed]

Those incidents are abhorrent, and are all too often whitewashed by the military brass. This stuff really frosts my a$$. The bases there probably need to go, because I don't see the underlying problems being solved. It's a real shame. BTW, the perpetrators were Navy / Marine (Navy last time) No Army involved.

Anti_Nadalista wrote:

[Troll post removed]

By "Those guys" I presume you are referring to the United States?
BTW, There's just about no US Army in Okinawa, it's all Navy / Marines, and those guys are worse. It still doesn't excuse the actions, but it's not the US Army doing it. The reason the base is in Okinawa, is because the Navy / Marines were behaving so badly in the home islands, we had to move the bases out to Oki. There are still USAF bases in Japan proper though. The US needs some presence in the area, the problem is where to put it, and can they ever get their personnel to behave properly., thus preventing these types of incidents from occurring in the first place.

On article 9 and the history of Japan. The level of ignorance WRT this is appalling. All of you who didn't know what article 9 is, should brush up on your Japanese History, especially from around 1880 through 1945.

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: Ghibli's Suzuki Opposes Repealing Japan's Anti-War Clause

Hokkaido Gals Are Super Adorable! Anime Series Review

This Week in Anime - Why Hunter × Hunter is Worth the Wait

Detective Conan Author Gōshō Aoyama's Yaiba Manga Gets New Anime

trapezium Anime Film Review

Welcome Back, Spice and Wolf

Yura Urushibara's Tougen Anki Manga Gets TV Anime in 2025

This Week in Anime - Will We Ever Know Why Anime Get Cancelled?

Your Anime Rankings - Best of Spring 2024, Apr 1-28

Producer Masakazu Kubo on Making an Anime for Hardcore Golf Fans

Forum - View topicINTEREST: Ghibli's Suzuki Opposes Repealing Japan's Anti-War Clause

Forum

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: Ghibli's Suzuki Opposes Repealing Japan's Anti-War Clause