Ishiba vows to work to revise Constitution; yet momentum low

Nobody will listen to PM Ishiba, and that's his real problem, no appeal, no charisma, no nothing

PM Abe tried to revise Article 9 but failed.

What is Ishiba blabbing about? Article 9? If so communicate clearly. Constitutional amendments need 2/3rds vote in both houses of the Diet plus a majority vote of the electorate.

Good luck.

Boring news!

Let's see how far he goes. That Shinzo Abe failed multiple times is not exactly relevant because the geopolitical conditions today are far more threatening. I doubt removing the contradictory second paragraph of Article 9, which denies the existence of the JSDF, the 8th largest military according to Global Power Index 2024, would be hard to achieve today.

Since the end of World War II, Germany has amended it's constitution more than 60 times. France has 50 times. Italy over 40 times.

Convince the people that's how positive changes begin.

Cephus...yes...ask the people of Japan.

Not the warmongers of the US Industrial Military Complex.

Dogs of war ...all of them.

Japan right now has no momentum towards an alteration of article 9. What I find sad about that is Japan can not enter into mutual defense alliances as things stand right now.

If war breaks out in the region and Japanese ships come under fire or are sunk, or the Japanese mainland is targeted and people die, it will then be in a scramble to alter or abolish article 9 in efforts to get help from others. By doing nothing now it endangers itself in the future.

Japan had a horrific experience of ultra nationalistic rule that saw it as the aggressor nation in the region in the last century, and it has no wish for a repeat of that experience. But almost all nations manage to engage in mutual defense relationships with friendly nations without turning into empire building aggressive countries. They do so in an effort to maintain peace and security for their country that supports sovereignty and self determination.

Japan must try to gauge the future as best it can and figure out if it would benefit from mutual defense with others, or is better to remain as it is and risk being drawn into a conflict of others making without the safety of numbers that mutual alliances bring.

What is clear is tensions in the region are rising and those nearby are building their military forces to a point that dwarfs Japan's SDF. Japan can take steps of deterrence alone, or make a stronger deterrence alongside others.

The future is coming, ready or not. Japan and her people need to figure out if it is best to stand up and maintain a place of strong influence on the region or kneel down and hope neighbors will simply ignore Japan, which would leave Japan with no real voice or influence in its own neighborhood.

Sometimes just showing a bully your prepared to fight is enough to make them think twice and choose not to involve you, but not always.

One thing is certain, it is better to have friends at your side than to stand alone.

Japan would do.better,by just been quiet and not antagonizing it neighbors,the US can nearly protect it people,Japan would have the same date as Afghanistan and Iraq ,with the US Japan in. state of destruction

revising or crushing Constitution is unnecessary.

Peter14Today  06:03 pm JST

Japan right now has no momentum towards an alteration of article 9. What I find sad about that is Japan can not enter into mutual defense alliances as things stand right now.

Japan already interpreted the law to allow collective defense since 2015.

If war breaks out in the region and Japanese ships come under fire or are sunk, or the Japanese mainland is targeted and people die, it will then be in a scramble to alter or abolish article 9 in efforts to get help from others.

If Japanese ships come under fire, or Japan itself comes under attack, the JSDF can act immediately without altering anything. This is exactly how Self Defense" is defined.

If Japanese ships come under fire, or Japan itself comes under attack, the JSDF can act immediately without altering anything. This is exactly how Self Defense" is defined.

Doing the bidding of your country again? Japan should put itself first, not the interests of USA or its military industrial complex.

If Japanese ships come under fire, or Japan itself comes under attack, the JSDF can act immediately without altering anything.

I was not implying they could not act in their own self defense. But they do so alone or with US assistance. Trump says the relationship is unfair because it does not allow for Japan to go to US aid if they are attacked as a mutual defense treaty allows for. In addition nations like Australia, UK, Malaysia or even Singapore who have no mutual defense agreement with Japan would not come to Japan's aid when it might badly need it.

That is the entire point of mutual defense agreements.

Japan would be stronger with such alliances than it is alone. As other nations allied with Japan would be stronger for having such an alliance.

Pukey2Today  06:25 pm JST

If Japanese ships come under fire, or Japan itself comes under attack, the JSDF can act immediately without altering anything. This is exactly how Self Defense" is defined.

Doing the bidding of your country again? Japan should put itself first, not the interests of USA or its military industrial complex.

Anyone who understands English would see that the U.S. is not mentioned at all. This refers to the Japanese constitiution Article 9.

Your inane posts are harassment.

Peter14Today  06:25 pm JST

If Japanese ships come under fire, or Japan itself comes under attack, the JSDF can act immediately without altering anything.

I was not implying they could not act in their own self defense. But they do so alone or with US assistance. Trump says the relationship is unfair because it does not allow for Japan to go to US aid if they are attacked as a mutual defense treaty allows for.

Trump is living mentally in the 1980s. I remember when Japanese car imports and the "unfair" aspect of our defense treaty with Japan were news on TV.

That the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty is "unfair" goes back to the US forcing Article 9 onto post WWII Japan. Japan didn't come up with it, we did, and Truman signed it.

But since 2015 under Shinzo Abe, the laws limiting the JSDF have been reinterpreted and have evolved to the extent that Japan can exercise Collective Defense, the right to come to the aid of an ally under attack. While it limits it's application stringently, it contains caveats which, based on interpretation may be easily overcome. Particularly in a fast moving crisis.

For example, Collective Defense can be applied if "Japan's survival is threatened". And if the rights and freedoms of it's citizens are threatened. It isn't hard to imagine a conflict involving China and Taiwan will not endanger J-residents of the outlying Okinawan islands. Or that a full blown military crisis over Taiwan won't affect Japan's survival, especially with Japan hosting the largest numberof US troops and bases in the world, outside of the U.S. The most recent reinterpretation I believe is that the JSDF can come to the assistance of an ally under attack, even if the JSDF itself is NOT under attack.

In addition nations like Australia, UK, Malaysia or even Singapore who have no mutual defense agreement with Japan would not come to Japan's aid when it might badly need it.

The right to Collective Defense is only about 10 years old, and pushed through against enormous resistance. But since Feb 2022, people's opinions towards security in Japan , as well as everywhere, have changed. Japan currently maintains 2+2 meetings (foreign and defense ministers) with he U.S. (since 2002), India (since 2019), Australia (since 2007)_, U.K. (since 2015), France (since 2014), Germany (since 2021) and Phillipines (since 2022). It is evident that legal reistrictions on JSDF participation will increase over time with legal amedments and reinterpretations.

Japan should have its own constitution, written by the Japanese.

But more importantly, it must get rid of the unhealthy influence the US has on it.

I don't want the constitution to be changed just so that it can build its military and then be sacrificed to attack China, like Ukraine was against Russia.

If Japanese politicians would do their job, i.e. represent their people and communicate the will of the people rather than their American "handlers," or whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes, this country might move toward democracy. The Japanese constitution must be made by Japanese people, not by outside influences.

Wick's pencilToday  07:04 pm JST

I don't want the constitution to be changed just so that it can build its military and then be sacrificed to attack China, like Ukraine was against Russia.

Newsflash! Ukraine did not start a war against Russia. Nor was it sacrificed by anyone.

When push comes to shove, there is no guarantee one's so-called "Allies" (Frenemies) will actually commit to their responsibilities and come to the rescue. If being a sovereign nation is the aim of the game... then Japan shouldn't bother wasting time on getting public support or changing the constitution or any of that rubbish which will simply enable them to defend or attack OTHERS... Investing in nuclear weapons for SELF-DEFENSE is a much simpler, stronger and reliable deterrent. Especially when fickle nations are likely to conveniently forget about their treaty obligations as time passes. (Just look at Ukraine for a case-in-point example...)

I've often wondered how common knowledge it is among the Japanese that the peace, prosperity, and above all the personal freedom they enjoy in Japan is largely stemmed from the Americans who wrote their constitution. It would be a very, very different country today had that not happened. They are very fortunate.

Let the downvotes commence!

He's right. It does have outdated articles and could use a revision.