Japan\'s Constitution, or the Peace

¶ … Japan's Constitution, or the peace clause, is a very contentious issue in of modern Japanese politics. This is not least so because of the time period and political involvement in creating the clause. The clause was created during the 1950s, after the war, when the Japanese law-making body was still under the power of the United States. According to some critics, the law should have been revised as soon as U.S. forces were withdrawn from Japan, because the Constitution as it stands was not created by the Japanese. Having sovereignty now, the argument is that the Japanese people should use this sovereignty to critically evaluate the laws created during American occupation, and should be revised where necessary. As such, an increasing number of people are of the opinion that the peace clause of Article 9 has long been in need of revision. Because the peace clause does not appear constitutional in terms of sovereign rights, I believe that it should be substantially revised.

As it stands, the two provisions of the clause appear to disadvantage Japan considerably. While the first provision is laudable enough, it is hardly realistic in terms of today's political climate. Furthermore, the provision does not take into account possible changes in the future political climate. While Japan as a country may therefore advocate and stand for international peace, countries who are in dispute with Japan may not feel the same way, or indeed have a peace clause of their own, and may go to war at will. This would leave Japan defenseless.

The second provision is problematic because of its apparently all-encompassing paradigm. It forbids entirely any and all war potential, which appears to include defense forces. This further limits Japan's power to defend itself should it be involved in international conflict of any kind.

A further problem of the provision is that, not having maintained any war forces, Japan would be unable to assist any of its allies in their war efforts, and thus jeopardize its friendly international relations. Once again, this is particularly dangerous position in today's political climate. Allies and international relations are vital in terms of maintaining the possibility of peaceful rather than violent solutions to international problems. As it currently stands, however, Article 9 simply does not take into account that, while Japan advocates peaceful solutions, other countries may operate under different paradigms.

Another interesting aspect of this is that, although the Constitute forbids it, Japan does indeed have a Self-Defense Force (SDF), on both land, at sea, and in the air. In addition to factors of logic and need, the Constitution also needs to be revised on a very practical, concrete basis.

Currently, there are three possible revisions that have been considered in revising the Japanese Constitution. The first of these is proposed by Ozawa. Ozawa proposed leaving the first two provisions as they are, and only adding a third to the effect that the second should not prevent Japan from maintaining forces to defend itself.

This however appears to directly contradict the second provision, which states that absolutely no military forces should be maintained. While it does therefore provide for the defense forces, it appears almost as contradictory as currently having these forces in the first place. I would therefore rather advocate a more substantial revision than only adding a third provision.

The second proposal is submitted by Hatoyama. He bases his revision upon the existence of the Japanese SDF, which, as he maintains, is in effect maintaining forces of war. The existing Constitution forbids this. This is why Hatoyama proposes a complete revisal of both provisions. In contrast to Ozawa, Hatoyama goes to the other extreme of the matter by proposing a Constitution that provides for the maintenance of war forces and war potential, with a second provision that forbids the country from using these in acts of aggression. While this second provision therefore implies that military forces can only be used in defense, I do not believe that this implication strongly enough adheres to the spirit of the original first provision. Also, placing the provision second to the first that allows military forces emphasizes the war function rather than the self-defense functions. The third proposal by Nakasone therefore appears to be the best option.

Nakasone proposes keeping the first provision intact, but discarding the original second and adding another in its place, together with a third provision. The second provision echoes the first by Hatoyama, that Japan has the right to maintain military forces, with the understanding that this is for self-defense purposes. The third provision then reiterates that the country retains its right for collective self-defense as well.