politics

Abe urges LDP, New Komeito to reach agreement on collective self-defense

21 Comments

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Monday urged the ruling Liberal-Democratic Party and its junior coalition party, the New Komeito party, to reach an agreement on a reinterpretation of the Constitution to allow Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense.

The two parties will begin full-scale discussions on Tuesday.

Abe told a Diet committee that the cabinet will endorse the decision if the two ruling parties can reach an agreement before the current Diet session ends on June 22, Fuji TV reported.

Abe has said that he wants the Self-Defense Forces to be able to help the United States or other allies under attack and has outlined eight scenarios where that would apply. These include defending U.S. vessels evacuating Japanese from war zones and protecting sea lanes vital to Japan's interests.

Any change would mark a dramatic turning point for Japan's military, which has not fired a shot in conflict since World War Two.

However, the New Komeito has long expressed reluctance to change the pacifist Constitution and is calling for more thorough debate.

Abe reiterated that the SDF will not be sent abroad for combat and that the Diet will be involved in any decision on deploying the SDF.

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

Absolutely, in a New Japan of modern area, participating in global affair is a must for the survival and prosperity of future Japan. The SDF should be well trained, prepared, and equipped, even for a strong deterrence purpose.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Join U.N. forces and all your purposes will be served.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If China complains you can be assured it's good for Japan and the whole world.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

The thin end of the wedge.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan is thinking seriously how to deal with rogue neighbours realizing that the peace constitution does not guarantee the peace of the country but on the contrary the rogue neighbors are taking advantage of Japan's peace constitution which stipulates Japan will not take arms to settle international conflicts. It is making them free to all kinds of provocations. Japan is thinking it is difficult to keep dignity of the country as the way it is.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Japan needs to establish a non-combat force of civilians and soldiers to participate behind the lines in international operations based on United Nations resolutions like a U.N. Peace Cooperation Corps.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Abe says he wants to help the US, if they are under attack. When was the last time the US was under attack in Asia? Talk about playing on fears! If he wants to only defend other nations, why not try to join the UN? That's what it was created for.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Abe told a Diet committee that the cabinet will endorse the decision

Haven't we heard that one before ? (Something about "respecting the decision" of the UN on whaling ?)

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just what Japan does not need: to get into any wars. The people must stand up to this violation of the Constitution.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The New Komeito Party, is a mostly Buddhist, peace loving, anti violence political party backed by the Soka Gakkai, so the chances of the New Komeito Party of saying to Abe, hey, we think you are right and we will just go with the flow and CHANGE the PACIFIST Japanese constitution has a SNOW BALLS CHANCE IN HELL!! Ain’t gonna happen! If Japan tries to become some kind of mini super power for Asia, this will only upset the CHINESE and RUSSIANS, KOREANS etc...so Mr.Obama etc...will just have to hold their breaths.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Having a "constitution that guarantee peace" is not a all powerful barrier. Do you think a country with expansionist goals will go and say.... "oops, Japan has a peaceful constitution, let's not attack, menace or put any kind of military pressure to them"?

Each country have to be able to defend itself and with in the modern era, a Defense Force that can only begin to act when the menace has enter its territory it is a virtually useless force. If you want to defend your country you have to be able to defend eliminate the threat long before it gets near its own territory and for that you need an Force that can act outside of it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If China complains you can be assured it's good for Japan and the whole world.

Pretty much spot on. One thing, not China. The Chinese Communist Party, one of the most ruthless, greedy, heinous regimes to have ever existed.

Haven't we heard that one before ? (Something about "respecting the decision" of the UN on whaling ?)

UN decision was to ban JARPA II, not ban whaling outright. The ruling gave Japan the opportunity to submit a new program to the International Whaling Commission and that is exactly what Abe intends to do. Perfectly within the bounds of the ICJ's decision.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Throughout ancient and modern history, Japan has always been the aggressor and the trouble maker in east Asia. Japan has attacked and invaded Korea many times and will do it again if the world stays by and allow Japan to rearm.

As the saying goes, a leopard cannot change its spots so likewise Japan under Mr Abe is showing its true war minded colors.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Daniel Neagari: it true that japans constitution doesn't guarantee peace but it has a better track record than any other country that continuously promotes the military industrial complex. Japan defensive capabilities are NOT virtually useless, as YOU say. Besides, by your logic, we should do pre emptive strikes to any country with poor actions. That sounds like a much greater threat to peace than our actions since the end of WW2. "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This is really for the sake of peace, at least you can believe this before it works for a war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Stuart

I never have even mentioned nor promoted the idea of "preemptive strike"... thing is to attack a country on the supposition that is going to attack....

What I am saying is to eliminate the threat that is aimed or believe to be aimed to a country... that is for example a missile that is on-route. That missile should be destroyed before entering the country areal territory. People confuse that a lot eliminating an on-route threat does not mean an preemptive strike

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Daniel Neagari: My bad for misunderstanding your comment, though you never mentioned anything about in-route missiles either. Just curious, what country is sending missiles into our airspace? Maybe that's just a "what if" example but there are a lot of "what if's" in life, if you want to hypothesize. Either way, the US military already has that type of defensive equipment in Japan. If Abe was only speaking of needing defensive anti-missile technology, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but this is NOT the case.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Stuart

Good I was aware that the US has that kind of equipment.... But that does mean squat... Each country has to be able to defend it self....

In any given moment, the US may have to retreat, or won't be able to help (because of conflicts of interests or something). And finally those "what ifs" you say... well, there is China, there is North Korea... OK those two may not be really a threat because in reality they wont do it (some may say).. But still there is. Base of those "What ifs" the every other nation in the world has its planes, schemes and weapons...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Daniel Neagri: I already stated that I don't have a problem with a country that wants to be capable of defending itself. But to what ends? Do you suggest every threat that can be conceived? Japan can defend herself already, plus America is sworn to protect Japan, not only legal obligations but our national security needs to protect these strategic locations. On top of all this, Abe wants to change the constitution in a way that goes MUCH further than just defending Japan! It sounds like you would be happy to start an arms race with China and NK, simply having more weapons and military does NOT guarantee peace, in fact it usually creates the opposite affect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Three's no reason why US soldiers must risk their lives for Japan but Japanese soldiers do not have to risk their lives for US soldiers. It doesn't get simpler than that. Collective defense with boost the effectiveness of the US-Japan alliance. Which is why China and it's supporters oppose it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

These include defending U.S. vessels evacuating Japanese from war zones and protecting sea lanes vital to Japan’s interests.

"sea lanes vital to Japan's interests."

So this means that the U.S. and Japan can jointly project military power to the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca? Will collective self-defense mean that a sea lane vital to U.S. interests also becomes vital to Japan's?

Three's no reason why US soldiers must risk their lives for Japan but Japanese soldiers do not have to risk their lives for US soldiers.

We're moving in the wrong direction: The direction should be fewer situations where the U.S. would be called to risk their lives for any other nation. The U.S. needs to be very involved in the region until things are resolved w/regards to North Korea. Once accomplished, the U.S. should start to decrease its military presence in the region.

The U.S. has always cooperated and held training with Japan's Self-Defense forces and that has proved adequate to every challenge faced to this point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites