politics

Japan set for landmark easing of constitutional limits on military

82 Comments
By Linda Sieg

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

82 Comments
Login to comment

****this is crazy , First introducing robots as a replacement for human role in modern society in 2020 , then changing the constitution , and particularly article 9 , This is madness , dissolute the lower house and the Parliament ,,,

Under Bush , A war

Under Obama , another war , this is complete madness , breaking of article 9 of the constitution is complete madness , Are we satisfied enough of wars , Please keep japan out of those war

2 ( +11 / -9 )

So what is behind this move? Two statements in the news story provide some insight:

Abe...returned in triumph in December 2012 pledging to revive Japan’s stagnant economy and bolster its global security clout.

Reread, this means Abe wants to follow the US in using the weapons industry as a means of funneling public money as part of corporate welfare to boost GDP.

According to the draft cabinet resolution, Japan could exercise force to the minimum degree necessary in cases where a country with which it has close ties is attacked and the following conditions are met: there is a threat to the existence of the Japanese state, a clear danger exists that the Japanese people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could be subverted, and there is no appropriate alternative.

Reread, this basically says that Japan, which lives far beyond its carrying capacity with its huge population, high standard of living and scant resources, can use military force to keep exploiting other peoples land, water and labour for its own consumptive needs. Until now, Japan has saddles up to the US to have continued access to these resources.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Look there are cracks in the image of “peaceful” nation and the constitutional democracy. When the head is crooked nobody can do anything about it, is this what they call a democracy? I think it is just a step away from dictatorship. They say this is not what the Japanese people want, who cares? Now, you can toss the constitution out of the window.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Yes, U.S. is pressuring on Japan’s military to build or buy more weapons, increase troop levels, expand missions, and to increasingly adopt an offensive, rather than defensive capability. Never considered is a substantial reduction in U.S. forces or bases in Japan. With the U.S. support, the only choice is between more and deadlier armaments and offensive reach. The rise of China is putting stress on U.S. and it needs its allies to work cooperatively. The majority of the Japanese public is against collective self-defense. U.S. policies may succeed in getting the constitutional “reinterpretation” if Abe wants to permit “collective defense” with the U.S.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

"The change will likely rile an increasingly assertive China, whose ties with Japan have chilled due to a maritime row, mutual mistrust and the legacy of Japan’s past military aggression, but will be welcomed by Tokyo’s ally Washington"

LOL. Yes China will be "riled" by the consequences of their own unprovoked unilateral actions and attitude towards a peaceful Japan that did nothing but help them get off their economic knees since 1978. You reap what you sow.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

From a legal standpoint this is not legitimate. He needs a two thirds diet majority vote and he has not received that. Changing an interpretation is really no different from changing the constitution itself, and there is a process that must be followed to do that. This should be a cause for concern for any Japanese who believe in democracy. It opens the door for the government to change anything they want to in the constitution. The government has acted in a fashion that indicates that it thinks it not subject to is the law. But as LDP bigwig Inaba said a few months ago 'The affairs of governement are not the affairs of the people'. it is clear Abe and cohorts talk the 'rule of law' when it comes to the Asia-Pacific region, but when it comes to domestic policy, they certainly don'r walk the rule of law. They have completely undermined the democratic process of this country.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

I think everyone above has added well thought out positions. My question to all is, " Do you believe that China will remain passive towards Japan in the future, and that no national defense is necessary?" And if not, is it reasonable to offload this responsibility for our children's safety upon the US military?

5 ( +9 / -4 )

I think everybody knew this was gonna happen regardless of public opinion. The j-gov changed the legislative laws last year to allow them to change the constitution without a public referendum. All the reasons given by the Japanese government for this change are just political guff. They want to be sure they can defend Japan? They can! They want to send troops to battle to help other countries? They can! (not battle, but logistic support). The only reason they want to change it is so they can lob shells at Chinese planes and ships that get too close to those specks of rock in the South China Sea. Make no mistake, Japan will start another war in Asia and this is just the first step.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

@Mess11

There is nothing in the present constitution that says Japan can't defend itself. This re-interpretation allows Japan to be able to basically wage war again in other countries anywhere in the world if it deems a situation poses 'an existential threat to the Japanese people's liberty and pursuit of happiness...'

So this is not concerned with the defense of Japan. It allows it to take offensive actions internationally and also profit from defense contracts by creating its own military industrial complex.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Mess11Jun. 28, 2014 - 08:05AM JST Do you believe that China will remain passive towards Japan in the future, and that no national defense is necessary?"

China will continue to be assertive toward Japan and neighboring countries in the future. However, China is so dependent on offshore resources, markets and investors to keep its economy growing that it can’t run the risk of really scaring its trading partners. China’s potential for territorial growth is severely limited by geography. Ironically, China’s disputes with neighbors over the disposition of minor islands and reefs underscores how little real potential China has for growing its territory the way other powers have. You have to remember that China is adding 18 million cars a year, and they will be importing 80 percent of her oil needs by 2030.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Critics say revising the interpretation of the constitution will gut pacifist Article 9 and make a mockery of formal amendment procedures, which are politically much tougher.

This to me is the heart of the matter. I believe that it is in Japan's best interests to revise it's Constitution to allow a more normal military posture with respect to it's allies and for it's defense from North Korea and an increasingly assertive China. However, the current government cannot and should not just make up it's own interpretation of Article 9 which clearly prohibits Abe's intent. Abe needs to make the case for a Constitutional amendment and get it passed. If such an effort failed it could prove very unfortunate for Japan's future defense. On the other hand, succeeding would be a strong signal to China that the Japanese people will not be pushed around by bullies.

" Do you believe that China will remain passive towards Japan in the future, and that no national defense is necessary?"

China will absolutely continue to step up it's bullying of other nations around it - especially the Japanese. I am afraid that it will take the deaths of more than a few Japanese for the country to snap out of it's naïve view of war in the modern world. Just being committed to peace will not prevent another nation from waging war on you.

And if not, is it reasonable to offload this responsibility for our children's safety upon the US military?

The US can no longer afford to defend itself, Europe, and East Asia. Japan would be wise to recognize that fact and begin planning for its future self defense accordingly.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@wolfpack

When China declared ADIZ, everybody jumps but when Japan declares EEZ, few in the West pays attention. As you know, in 1978, Japan and China to agree to shelve the Senkaku/Daioyu island issue. However, in 1996 Japan declared an EEZ (zone of around 200 miles) around the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands causing further escalation of dispute with China. Why did Japan declared EEZ in a disputed area in 1996 to piss off China?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

the whole world never trust our army due to historical wise. i hope my country learn from the past and be a human not evil. In Japan i love.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Lions tigers and bears, oh my!

Japan will attack Pearl Harbor again, war is coming, the world is over, the sky is falling, the sky if falling!

Love the what ifs being cried out by folks here. But, what ifs and maybes have nothing to do with reality. Japan isn't planning on invading anyone. If they were you all would have some sort of proof.

I am tickled pink that Japan has begun to rid itself of Article 9. Japan isn't the same nation it was back in the 20's. That nation is no more. Japan has grown into a wiser and more civilized nation. Japan isn't seeking to go to war , Japan is seeking to keep the peace.

Remember, a nation with a strong military is a peaceful nation and a nation without one is a target of bullies.

Some folks (mostly the Communist here) would love to see Japan without a military all together. Those same folks would love to see the U.S. military out of Japan. They have taken Japan to court on more than one occasion to get their way and lost.

Ladies and gents the world has changed and it is high time that Japan joined the modern world.

Communist China needs to feed its expanding nation and it's using force to achieve what it wants. It has claimed 90% of the South China Sea and nearly all of the East China Sea. They have even claimed Okinawa.

If Communist China were a good neighbor the threat of war in this region wouldn't be so high. But, it is and Japan feels that it's military need real teeth. So, now Japan has begun to rid itself of the anchor known as Article 9.

If you are angered and fearful, that anger and fear should be pointed where it belongs, Communist China.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

Let the arms race truly begin

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Finally that will happen! To me Japan is walking in the right direction and Abe is doing a very good Job.

There are a dozen of positive reasons to change the interpretation of the article nine and only one or two reasons not to change it.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Wow, another commonly used, yet never successful tactic when economies are swirling down the toilet of doom.

Print a bunch of money, and if that doesn't work, make up a foreign enemy and build up your military.

In a strange way, it makes some sense. Since Japan has run out of places to build roads that nobody will ever use, might as well spend some of that printed (and soon to be worthless ) money on military equipment.

After all, when Japan's currency is worth zero (which it WILL be within a decade) at least they'll have a bunch of guns and bullets.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This must be the fourth arrow. Did Abe forget to mention it in his economic plan?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'm picturing that Japanese Nazi on the megaphone, from the video a couple of months ago, leading the country in about 10 years.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

a nation with a strong military is a peaceful nation

How about Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength while you're at it.

Before we know it, we'll believe that Arbeit Macht Frei, too!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Article 9 should not be changed and does nothing to stop the country from defending itself which has happened for the last 70 years, during which period the country was never attacked nor did the country go to war against another nation.

A position which should be followed by many other countries including my birth country, Britain which should only defend itself and Europe and not be involved in wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe the nation will have regret if and when troops are returned to the country in body bags?

6 ( +12 / -6 )

DisillusionedJun. 28, 2014 - 08:25AM JST Make no mistake, Japan will start another war in Asia and this is just the first step.

I was with you until you threw out this little gem. Let's look at your comment objectively. How anti-war are the people of Japan? I'd say more so than most other countries. How well equipped and trained are they to "start a war"? With 50 years of an entirely defensive military and defensive planning, I'd say they aren't trained for it at all. How geared is their equipped for offensive military action? Not at all. Are they a country that's alone in their diplomatic relations are prone to act alone? No, they are tied to the United States through a treaty and allied with Australia and NATO. Are Japanese military or government ships and planes intruding on any foreign territories under the control of another country. No. Is Japan's moves towards collective defense and greater military role scorned or feared by Asian countries? Only by China. South Korea's complaints are political as their military recognizes the benefit to them as US allies. Even countries like the Philippines that were WWII victims, and former Allied power adversaries are welcoming Japan's moves. I'd say your comment is impossible to support rationally.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

What make me admire Japan Govt most is , they can always find a ration under whatever circumstances to support their actions.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@wolfpack

This to me is the heart of the matter. I believe that it is in Japan's best interests to revise it's Constitution to allow a more normal military posture with respect to it's allies and for it's defense from North Korea and an increasingly assertive China. However, the current government cannot and should not just make up it's own interpretation of Article 9 which clearly prohibits Abe's intent. Abe needs to make the case for a Constitutional amendment and get it passed. If such an effort failed it could prove very unfortunate for Japan's future defense. On the other hand, succeeding would be a strong signal to China that the Japanese people will not be pushed around by bullies.

This is really a good and the best thing for Japan in the long run.

China will absolutely continue to step up it's bullying of other nations around it - especially the Japanese. I am afraid that it will take the deaths of more than a few Japanese for the country to snap out of it's naïve view of war in the modern world. Just being committed to peace will not prevent another nation from waging war on you. The US can no longer afford to defend itself, Europe, and East Asia. Japan would be wise to recognize that fact and begin planning for its future self defense accordingly.

Very true. This also gives Japan to properly teach and train future recruits about love, devotion of their country, I say that, because if you look at the case of Iraq, the Iraqi army are leaving in droves. They are discarding their uniforms, dropping their weapons and pleading with the enemy for mercy, they are NOT even trying and that is absolutely pathetic and unacceptable. No one wants war, No one wants to die, but if you don't fight back, you will lose everything. ISIS and Al Qaeda will never waver in their quest to destroy their opponents and to establish a caliphate. The younger generation of Japanese men are too soft and don't want to get involved on ANY wars, but that's the problem, with all the problems the US has at the moment, we just don't have the money, troops and frankly, many Americans think that Japan can and should bed the way in protecting their shores, we can always give them support, but like in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have to take the lead, it's their country, because the if it comes to that, China will not blink, guaranteed. Japan should institute a draft system like Korea and some European countries, because I don't think many Japanese men would voluntarily just walk in and enlist in the JSDF.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

JoeBigs: You are one to point out the potential "what ifs", lol. That has been half of your comments on this subject, playing on people's fears. Have the communist attacked us? No, yet you are going on about the "what if" potential, exactly what you accuse others of doing, what a hypocrite! We have had about sixty years of peace and nothing threatens that more than changing article nine for the worse and allowing the growth of the military Industrial complex. I don't have a problem with true self defense but that is NOT what this is about.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The next we will be reading is the need for atomic weapons from the current stockpile of more than 50 tons of plutonium because China has nuclear weapons?

2 ( +12 / -10 )

A step in the right direction, but Article 9 needs to be completely nullified eventually.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

A step in the right direction, but Article 9 needs to be completely nullified eventually.

A step in the wrong direction, and article 9 should never be revoked.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

International geopolitics is already precarious enough without a right winged nationalist Japanese government being able to send its military anywhere in the world if it wants to.

The biggest threat Japan faces is in its own backyard and its current constitution is fully equiped to deal with those threats.

There are already enough weapons and munitions manufacturers cynically churning out their flesh ripping face burning products at it is. There are NO good reasons for this ammendment.

What are the real reasons for tthis:

The current Constitution is a humiliating reminder of Japan's last military undertaking. A desire to be like everyone else. A desire to be less dependent on the US for defense-which doesnt make sense at all if Japan already has the right to defend itself. A wish to sell develop and sell military technology.

None of these are particularly sound reasons. If Japan is serious about its defense capabilities then that is precisely what it should be focused on. Given its own precarious situation it should not be entertaining the idea of potential mine clearing operations in the Straits of Hormuz, or helping Vietnam or the Phillipines. It does not have the resources to engage in those kinds of undertakings both in terms of manpower and hardware-particularly when it should be looking to its own defense. Offense is not defense...Its pre-emption...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Is Japan capable of building atomic weapons? The country attempted to achieve that during the Pacific War but failed before surrender.

In 1967 it adopted the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, ruling out the production, possession, or introduction of nuclear weapons. That could be changed by the current government.

The governments Special Secrecy Law comes into force at the end of the year. allowing the government to designate defense information as "special secret". The law "almost limitlessly widens the range of what can be considered confidential".

There have been many political leaders which have favoured the building of atomic weapons. Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone opined that it would be possible that possessing small-yield, purely defensive nuclear weapons would not violate the Constitution.

In 1994, Japan admitted it was capable of building atomic weapons. A fact stated by the then Prime Minister, Tsutomu Hata.

In May, the country promised to return to America, 700 pounds (315 kg) of weapons grade plutonium and a supply of highly enriched uranium. Enough to make 40-50 nuclear weapons. Why did Obama make the request since Japan had the plutonium for decades? The plutonium has been kept at a research reactor site in Tokaimura, the site of a 1999 accident that killed two workers who mishandled a highly enriched uranium solution.

There is a plutonium stockpile of about 50 tons or enough to make 5,000 atomic weapons.

The government is set to push ahead with a program to produce new stockpiles creating a proliferation for decades to come. The plutonium will not be the grade desirable for weapons but it could be used to make weapons with a little time and effort. But anyway, this program will greatly increase the current stockpile of plutonium.

There are about 10 tons of plutonium at the the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, which was until recently protected by unarmed guards since civilians cannot carry firearms under Japanese law. Armed police are now stationed at the plant. The remaining plutonium stockpile is at the Sellafield plant in the UK. PM Abe has given his go ahead for new plutonium to be extracted from spent nuclear fuel at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant.

According to some experts, it would take Japan 183 days to build an atomic weapon. It could easily upgrade RGPu to WGPu, produce weapons-grade uranium from low-enriched uranium (WGU) by laser separation, or just produce WGU in its commercial centrifuge plant. Osaka Laser Engineering Laboratory, has one of the world's largest, most powerful lasers for use in inertial confinement (or laser) fusion experiments.

In theory, its H-II rocket, the satellite launch system, can be rebuilt into a ballistic missile to deliver nuclear weapons.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Given its own precarious situation it should not be entertaining the idea of potential mine clearing operations in the Straits of Hormuz, or helping Vietnam or the Phillipines.

That's exactly why it should do those things. In the event of war, Japan will expect the U.S. and its neighbors to come to its defense. Why should they though, if Japan does not offer the same courtesy?

Without mutuality, treaties are meaningless; case in point, despites the ANZUS treaty, the U.S. has abrogated its responsibility to New Zealand because the latter won't let it operate any nuclear-powered vessel in its territory. With the USN nuclearizing almost all its ships, that makes defence impossible. If it can't pull its own weight, Japan should be treated the same.

Offense is not defense...Its pre-emption.

What exactly is wrong with pre-emption? If you know of a plan to harm your country and its people, it's better for that plan to be carried out as a matter of propriety?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The World's Nations have witnessed, that if you have relied upon the United States for the past 65 years to do most of the fighting for you...under Obama and the DNC, those days are gone. Obama has turned his back on every traditional and non-traditional US ally. With China, Russia, and growing Islamic radical terrorist armies, threats to peace and security are challenged and faced every day. We had a saying in the Marines, 'No one likes to fight, but somebody has to know how'. PM Abe is doing his best to find real solutions for Japan's present and future security, and as well, build International trust and bonds. In Japan's immediate neighborhood, China keeps rattling it's saber, expanding it's maps to cover absolutely ridiculous areas of the Globe that they lay claim to. Then there is the ultimate nut job in North Korea that actually fired off 3 short range missiles in a temper tantrum ...over a MOVIE!! Un will start a war with the South or Japan, bet on it. Then China will use that as a pretext to expand their territories under the pretext of 'defense'. Until we in the USA get our sh.. back together and vote out the Authoritarian Socialist, don't count on much US support.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

There are lots of places need peace keeping forces and aid from Japan. Militaries needed at Iraq, Syria, Central Africa. Aid needed are Timor Leste, Central Africa, Indochina.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I said this in another similar post and I will say it again. No need for alarm. Japan's SDF is a volunteer force. And if you look around Japan, it seems that most able bodied men who would be the ones that would have to do the fighting, don't have the inclination to join the military or have militaristic views. If you notice, only the ones who really want war are the ones that are well past the age of going to war.

If after he did this he began to campaign on the need for a military draft, then I would be worried. But until a sizeable portion of young Japanese males drop their magna comics, and come out of their shells, Japan is not going to be able to fight any prolonged war like they did in the past.

It is good that at least maybe they can start taking part in some peace keeping missions, but nothing more will come out of this. Japan is only acting like the rest of the world.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I am just curios where Abe will take from the additional young people that are needed for military service? I thought there is already a shortage in the labor market.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What exactly is wrong with pre-emption? If you know of a plan to harm your country and its people, it's better for that plan to be carried out as a matter of propriety?

'Cause that worked out so well in Iraq.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Since the Self Defense Forces are not classified has military people but are in fact "Special Civil Servants". Like any other job they can resign with one months notice.

If the goal posts are going to be moved by dropping Article 9 then the military would also have to be reformed since the SDF could just refuse to go to war by resigning their jobs.

I know quite a few SDF guys, from the navy who are prepared to do what it takes to defend the country but would not go to war in some other lands?

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

I would have nothing against amending or rivising the constitution in any way a government in office sees fit as long as the majority of the Japanese people want it under one condition; Japan must come to terms with the past history of aggression againt China, Korea, and other Asian countries. Now that things have come to such a pretty pass, there is no doubt that the current government under Mr. Abe has no intention to set the past wrongs right. What he is doing would be to turn the principle of constitutionalism on its head, transforming the people , with whom sovereignty rests, into those who would be at the beck and call of the government, a topsy turvy democracy reminiscent of the 1984 world. The 1952 Tokyo District Court verdict handed down on the Sunagawa Incident declaring the presence of the US forces in Japan a breach of article 9 and the 1972 statement issued based on the cabinet dicision banning Japan from exercising the right to collective self defense were mangled , taken out of the context to distort the message in such a way as to fit their way of thinking. LDP and CGP got into a series of closed-door negotiations to come up with the feel-good conclusion on the reinterpretation to drive home the false message that what they have agreed upon is not a deviation from the 1972 statement, while they are going to get their" honne " true intention out into the open in the expected Diet deliverations that will contradict the two-party agreement, which is the result of weeks of talks. The closed-door negotoations were designned to serve as a gimmmic to give the voters something else to worry about. We should not get this out of our minds, we should not put this humiliation, their betrayal behind us. In another two years we will have the Lower House elections. We must get the most out of that opportunity to vote LDP out of office.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan's Basic Policy for National Defense stipulates the following policies:

**Maintaining an exclusive defense-oriented policy.

**To avoid becoming a major military power that might pose a threat to the world.

**Refraining from the development of nuclear weapons, and to refuse to allow nuclear weapons inside Japanese territory. (Three Non-Nuclear Principles).

**Ensuring civilian control of the military.

**Maintaining security arrangements with the United States.

**Building up defensive capabilities within moderate limits.

**Strict limits on arms exports.(Three Principles on Arms Exports).

Article 9 In theory, Japan's rearmament is prohibited by Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which states:

"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."

Any change to Article 9 would have to be followed by major changes to the National Security Policy including reforming the police, introducing a military and the Rules of Engagement which are strictly defined by the Self-Defence Forces Act 1954.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out and fight? They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait 'till their judgment day comes Yeah!

War Pigs by Black Sabbath.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

mgglifeJun. 28, 2014 - 11:03AM JST What make me admire Japan Govt most is , they can always find a ration under whatever circumstances to support >their actions.

Please name a government that doesn't.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Japan's role as a forward operating base in America's coming confrontation with China is beginning.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Its this or build ICBMs and nuclear submarines. Choose

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Abe knows the people won't support the removal of Article 9 so is doing this instead.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

U.S. has abrogated its responsibility to New Zealand because the latter won't let it operate any nuclear-powered vessel in its territory. With the USN nuclearizing almost all its ships, that makes defence impossible.

Not exactly true. The main reason is that the US would not (and still doesn't) let anyone know if it's vessels are carrying a special type of weapn. Not so much how they are powered but what they can do. So NZ will not let USN ships enter ports (it usedto be that way).

I am just curios where Abe will take from the additional young people that are needed for military service? I thought there is already a shortage in the labor market.

In the USA, once males reach 18 they have to register for the Selective Service (i.e. draft). If they don't, they will not be able to hold a Federal job or receive financal aid for college. We haven't drafted anyone since 1973, but you still have to register.

Abe andthe LDP has never made to my understanding a move to bring up something like that for Japan. So the alarmist who think this means that Japan is ready to go back on the warpath again don't really understand what it would take for that to happen. Changing the constitution has nothing to do with that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Alphaape

Abe and the LDP has never made to my understanding a move to bring up something like that for Japan. So the alarmist who think this means that Japan is ready to go back on the warpath again don't really understand what it would take for that to happen. Changing the constitution has nothing to do with that.

The only purpose or benefit from changing the constitution would be if the government could implement it. How could a country go to war with "civil servants" who can resign with a months notice?

I don't think its alarmist to look at changing the constitution means across the whole spectrum?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Japan has been so peaceful these seven decades because she was not really involved with others' problems. Once she follows in the US foot-steps, she will quickly know that Japan would not be so peaceful.the US is what she is in today because she attacked so many countries and sent her troops to control lands that are not hers. She now fears all kinds of attacks and toothpaste and nail cutters cannot even be brought up planes.shoes and belts need to be checked and the NSA spends billions every year to monitor everybody's phone call. Before they interfered in Afghanistan, these were unheard of.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And so it begins...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What many fail to consider is the intent of the original law. That intent was to have some assurance Japan was not going to start empire building again by invading and colonizing with a military.

All of it is irrelevant because politicians have an ability to justify any action no matter how attrocious, if the government wanted to invade and conquer they would just Do it, laws or treaties would never prevent it anyway.

In the end the government is responsible for protecting it's people and their individual existence from invasion and similar violent actions other nations or psycho tyrants might Do. By this assumption, Japan already has the legal standing to Do what these changes to their law imply.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I don't see any problem with this change in the constitution. Chances are that it won't even be necessary, but it's better to be able to participate in collective self-defence and not need to, than need to be able to participate but be incapable. Naturally, China will be most displeased with this news, accusing Japan of returning to their imperialist days. South Korea of course will follow suit, since they have to agree with their master. Meanwhile, North Korea isn't really going to care either way. It won't stop them launching missiles. Make the change Japan, it's better to be safe than sorry.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

JoeBigsJun. 28, 2014 - 09:43AM JST

Lions tigers and bears, oh my!

Japan will attack Pearl Harbor again, war is coming, the world is over, the sky is falling, the sky if falling!

Love the what ifs being cried out by folks here. But, what ifs and maybes have nothing to do with reality. Japan isn't planning on invading anyone. If they were you all would have some sort of proof.

I am tickled pink that Japan has begun to rid itself of Article 9. Japan isn't the same nation it was back in the 20's. That nation is no more. Japan has grown into a wiser and more civilized nation. Japan isn't seeking to go to war , Japan is seeking to keep the peace.

Japan want to develop a militaristic robot , they want to be stronger not wiser mr.joe , if any japanese want to go to war he should go alone , and never be in the behalf of the country ,

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan isn't planning on invading anyone. If they were you all would have some sort of proof.

Yeah, there would be some sort of proof, something like trying to change their constitution to allow them to attack other countries without first being attacked!

...oh, wait.

Japan isn't the same nation it was back in the 20's. That nation is no more. Japan has grown into a wiser and more civilized nation.

Incorrect. The people are still the same. The feudal mindset is still there. The people are still sheep to the government.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan isn't planning on invading anyone. If they were you all would have some sort of proof.

Yeah, there would be some sort of proof, something like trying to change their constitution to allow them to attack other countries without first being attacked!

...oh, wait.

Japan isn't the same nation it was back in the 20's. That nation is no more. Japan has grown into a wiser and more civilized nation.

Incorrect. The people are still the same. The feudal mindset is still there. The people are still sheep to the government.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

StrangerlandJun. 29, 2014 - 09:21AM JST "Japan isn't planning on invading anyone. If they were you all would have some sort of proof." Yeah, there would be some sort of proof, something like trying to change their constitution to allow them to attack other countries without first being attacked! ...oh, wait.

Every country has that right, including dictatorships that are currently threatening other countries. Somehow Japan having he same right makes you nervous?

"Japan isn't the same nation it was back in the 20's. That nation is no more. Japan has grown into a wiser and more civilized nation."

Incorrect. The people are still the same. The feudal mindset is still there. The people are still sheep to the government.

Incorrect. The government structure was different, the Cabinet included a Minister of the Navy and a Minister of the Army, from which Tojo became Prime Minister. All people are sheep to their governments, although I doubt there are many on the level of China and North Korea.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The trigger for the war was when, in 1950, Syngman Rhee boasted that he was going to attack North Korea. It was a good enough excuse – the North Koreans invaded South Korea. This started the actual fighting. Rhee made a self-incriminating statement when he said to U.S. News & World Report in August 1954, "We started this fight in the first place in the hope that Communist would be destroyed."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Somehow Japan having he same right makes you nervous?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Remember WWII?

Incorrect. The government structure was different, the Cabinet included a Minister of the Navy and a Minister of the Army, from which Tojo became Prime Minister.

There cannot be a minister of the Navy or a minister of the Army until they change the constitution, as they cannot maintain a military force. They are trying to change the constitution, which will enable the circumstances for them to recreate these positions, or equivalent ones.

The fact is, the Japanese people haven't changed. The people at the time were good people just like they are now, but they had then, and still have, a feudal mindset, that allows the government to control them the way they want. The people in power in Japan have always taken advantage of the people, and their willingness to follow like sheep. The only thing preventing the government from heading down the warpath again is the constitution. And as we can see, the government wants to change the constitution, thereby removing all barriers from repeating the sins of the past. If you really think this is wrong, you obviously don't know Japan very well.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

At a news conference held on July 10, 2001, just two months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker suggested that the Japanese Constitution be revised so that Japan could send SDF contingents overseas to cooperate effectively with U.S. forces. His opinion was a telltale reflection of Washington's decades-old stance on that matter.

In an interview article in the March 2004 issue of Bungeishunju magazine, then U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage expressed high hopes that the war-renouncing Japanese constitution must be revised for the sake of stronger Japan-U.S. alliance. He had earlier expressed the same view at the Japan Press Club.

It soon turned out, however, that it would take too long a time, or probably be almost impossible, under the current provision stipulating constitutional procedures for the Japanese government to revise the constitution. So the so-called "Japanophiles" such as Joseph Nye and Richard Armitage started saying the re-interpretation of Article 9 would do as much the same effect as the revising of the constitution.

Shinzo Abe was Secretary General of the LDP in 2001 under the Koizumi administration, Prime Minister from 2006 to 2007 and has been one since 2012. And so his actions for constitutional revision and then re-interpretation prove to parallel the counselling or ill-advice of the above-mentioned Japanophiles.

The bottom line: Japan is no other than a U.S. vassal that does faithfully what is dictated by the U.S., thus allowing Okinawa to be a U.S. military colony.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan may be abolished GHQ Constitution.

You should confront the invasion of Korea and Communist China "Axis of Evil".

YOU should recognize the reality that what is happening in the Senkaku Islands in Japan, and Tibetan, Uighur, southern Mongolia, Manchuria, Vietnam, Philippines,etc.

Japan, which destroys the GHQ Constitution, will fight for Asia again.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

According to the draft cabinet resolution, Japan could exercise force to the minimum degree necessary in cases where a country with which it has close ties is attacked and the following conditions are met: there is a threat to the existence of the Japanese state, a clear danger exists that the Japanese people’s right to life.......

So, suppose a few Japanese were in danger in SK, NK or China, base on the revised constitution, Japan can send troop to those countries where Japanese met dangers? very well ! Japan can send troops to any countries whenever/ wherever he wants !

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A ex-SDF guy now working happily as a salary man told me that these political movements had scared his ex-colleagues hell out and quitting from SDF in mass. SDF is no longer a mere stable profession. A profession to kill or to be killed.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

StrangerlandJun. 29, 2014 - 01:38PM JST "Somehow Japan having he same right makes you nervous?" Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Remember WWII?

I remember Vietnam moreso, our enemy was China and USSR. In the Korean War our enemy was China and USSR. I don't remember WWII and you don't either. A lot has happened in the last 70 years. Get over it. Japan's present military shares most of their bases with the U.S. and is integrated with the U.S. military because we share adversaries. Japan's re-militarization is merely a step towards normalization, just like any other country. It is not a massive military and territorial expansion like China. Do you really think the United States, Australia, EU, other non-China Asian nations support what Japan is doing without recognizing what Japan is today?

"Incorrect. The government structure was different, the Cabinet included a Minister of the Navy and a Minister of the Army, from which Tojo became Prime Minister."

There cannot be a minister of the Navy or a minister of the Army until they change the constitution, as they cannot >maintain a military force. They are trying to change the constitution, which will enable the circumstances for them to >recreate these positions, or equivalent ones.

Which is the right thing to do because of the threat that China poses to all of Asia.

The fact is, the Japanese people haven't changed. The people at the time were good people just like they are now, >but they had then, and still have, a feudal mindset, that allows the government to control them the way they want. The >people in power in Japan have always taken advantage of the people, and their willingness to follow like sheep. The >only thing preventing the government from heading down the warpath again is the constitution. And as we can see, >the government wants to change the constitution, thereby removing all barriers from repeating the sins of the past. If >you really think this is wrong, you obviously don't know Japan very well.

No it is you who does not know Japan very well. The people of pre-1945 did indeed have feudal mindset, but were also under the thumb of a military controlled government that controlled the country through censorship and prosecution of any potential "enemies of the state". It was without doubt the very essence of 軍国主義 . Since 1950 when the Korean War started the United States has tried to reverse the effects of the Pacifist Constitution. Bear in mind that this is only 5 years after 1945. The U.S. forced Japan to create the predecessor of today's JSDF through the national police agency. Since then the U.S. has continued to press Japan to change Article 9 and restore it's military but Japan has resisted US pressure by falling back on it's constitution. That is over 6 decades of refusing to normalize it's military, and you think that the constitution was the only thing that kept Japan from "going down the warpath"? It took China's overt and continued military, territorial expansion and belligerence to finally force Japan to wake up and smell the coffee. And even then it is a hotly debated issue. Your comments are so far from the facts as to be possibly Chinese propaganda.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I very much remember World War II and saw first hand what it did to families, and whole communities. I also saw what the Korean War did to people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No it is you who does not know Japan very well. The people of pre-1945 did indeed have feudal mindset, but were also under the thumb of a military controlled government that controlled the country through censorship and prosecution of any potential "enemies of the state".

Did you not read about the new secrecy bill last year, and how violators of it can be thrown in jail?

Basically everything you are describing is can be equivocated to the actions of the current government. Rather than making me feel less concern, your comments only serve to illustrate my points, and make me more worried.

The Japanese mindset has not changed, and they are setting up circumstances similar to those pre-WWII, while trying to alter their constitution to allow war. We should all be concerned. Very concerned.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Basically if the world wants to advance it needs to help out both India and China enter the 21st century, followed by Africa and South America.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

StrangerlandJun. 29, 2014 - 11:50PM JST

Did you not read about the new secrecy bill last year, and how violators of it can be thrown in jail?

Yup. Just like every other major democratic country. Only in fascist regimes,, like pre-1945 Japan or Nazi Germany (or China today) is that is that a real concern for abuse.

Basically everything you are describing is can be equivocated to the actions of the current government. Rather than >making me feel less concern, your comments only serve to illustrate my points, and make me more worried.

Fine, stay concerned. The rest of the planet is more concerned with China starting WWIII and we'll all be paying he price.

The Japanese mindset has not changed, and they are setting up circumstances similar to those pre-WWII, while trying >to alter their constitution to allow war. We should all be concerned. Very concerned.

Total hogwash.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yup. Just like every other major democratic country.

Not exactly. Other countries have a series of checks and balances, and a method of oversight, to ensure that the secrecy laws are not abused. The Japan secrecy laws contain none of these. And if anyone found that the laws were being abused, they would be thrown in jail if they tried to expose this abuse.

Only in fascist regimes,, like pre-1945 Japan or Nazi Germany (or China today) is that is that a real concern for abuse.

Or in countries with no checks and balances on their secrecy laws. Particularly countries that have a history of invasion of their neighbors.

Fine, stay concerned. The rest of the planet is more concerned with China starting WWIII and we'll all be paying he price.

Much of the planet is concerned with the Japan movement towards militarization. It's stupid to think China will start WWIII, as they have more to lose (economically) than to gain.

The Japanese mindset has not changed, and they are setting up circumstances similar to those pre-WWII, while trying to alter their constitution to allow war. We should all be concerned. Very concerned.

Total hogwash.

You obviously don't know the Japanese very well. I thought the same as you until I lived here among them for long enough, and realized that only their economy and environment have changed, but the people remain the same.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fox Sora Winters: Obviously you've lived in Japan too long. Since when is China the "master" of South Korea? Have you even asked what South Koreans think of China? Talk about brainwashed.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

StrangerlandJun. 30, 2014 - 12:22AM JST You obviously don't know the Japanese very well. I thought the same as you until I lived here among them for long >enough, and realized that only their economy and environment have changed, but the people remain the same.

Well since you weren't alive prior to 1945, how do you know that the people "haven't changed"?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Well since you weren't alive prior to 1945, how do you know that the people "haven't changed"?

Well, the first time I realized it was when an older Japanese person told me "We Japanese are still the same as we always have been. Our setting has just changed".

After being told that, I started to see it for the truth.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

StrangerlandJun. 30, 2014 - 01:53AM JST "Well since you weren't alive prior to 1945, how do you know that the people "haven't changed"? Well, the first time I realized it was when an older Japanese person told me "We Japanese are still the same as we >always have been. Our setting has just changed". After being told that, I started to see it for the truth.

Wow. That's quite a sampling. Must be true, huh?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The sample size has nothing to do with the truthfulness of it. The old man's comment was simply the trigger which allowed me to see the truth for myself.

So as I said, you obviously don't know the Japanese very well if you think that they don't have the same mindset as they did in the war. And since they have enacted a secrecy law with no oversight or checks and balances, and are attempting to change their constitution to allow for them to attack other countries with no provocation, it's very concerning. I don't necessarily agree with self-immolation as a form of protest, but I understand what brought this man to such drastic measures.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

StrangerlandJun. 30, 2014 - 04:10AM JST The sample size has nothing to do with the truthfulness of it. The old man's comment was simply the trigger which >allowed me to see the truth for myself.

You have expressed a view that the vast majority of the world, the fee world at least would reject as "silly". I gage you the benefit of the doubt and asked you how you derived that conclusion. You disclosed that our view was based on the opinion of one person. Upon whjich you reached a conclusion about an entire country of 127,000,000 people. Your "concern" that the changes will allow Japan to attack other countries is (1) wrong as the rules for collective defense are clearly defined and they don't include unilaterally attacking other countries, and (2) every country around Japan has he same right and ability that you so fear.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The fact is, the Japanese people haven't changed. The people at the time were good people just like they are now, but they had then, and still have, a feudal mindset

Strangerland, i find it amusing that you claim to know a whole countries mindset. Please provide evidence or keep your stereotypes to yourself. Don't speak for the majority of Japanese people and don't claim your opinion is a "fact".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I gage you the benefit of the doubt and asked you how you derived that conclusion. You disclosed that our view was based on the opinion of one person.

No, my view was based on my own observations of many years in Japan, that was initiated by someone who had lived through the war, and still lived today. Incidentally, the reason he told me this was because I was telling him how impressed I was with the Japanese for being able to make a 90 degree turn after the war and move from being a warring people to a business minded people. This led to his comment that only the setting had changed, and the people had remained the same.

Please provide evidence or keep your stereotypes to yourself. Don't speak for the majority of Japanese people and don't claim your opinion is a "fact".

It is fact. Of course, I don't expect you to believe me, but consider me the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind.

The fact is, the Japanese people have the same feudal mindset as they always did. The people are sheep to the rulers. The rulers take advantage of the people. And the rulers want to go to war. If they do go to war, the people will follow like sheep. The only thing preventing this right now is the constitution, which is why it should never be changed. Right now it's a constitution that provides a model of peace to the rest of the world, rather than trying to change it, they should be trying to get the rest of the world to adopt similar constitutions.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

StrangerlandJun. 30, 2014 - 11:11AM JST "I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you how you derived that conclusion. You disclosed that our view was based on the opinion of one person."

No, my view was based on my own observations of many years in Japan, that was initiated by someone who had lived >through the war, and still lived today. Incidentally, the reason he told me this was because I was telling him how >impressed I was with the Japanese for being able to make a 90 degree turn after the war and move from being a >warring people to a business minded people. This led to his comment that only the setting had changed, and the >people had remained the same.

Did it ever occur to you that he was talking about the end of he Shogunate era when the Samurai class (武家) lost their status in the Meiji era and the businessmen (商人)took the helm of the country leading to a massive modernization and industrialization that is only comparable to Post WWII Japan's miraculous economic rise? Or did he say to you specifically that "We Japanese all want to go invade another country" as you seem to have interpreted?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You do realize that I'm reporting a conversation I actually had, right?

No, he wasn't talking about that. The actual conversation was a lot longer than the two or three lines I've mentioned in this thread.

Or did he say to you specifically that "We Japanese all want to go invade another country" as you seem to have interpreted?

Where do you get that? I never said that, and in fact, I've said something quite different:

The fact is, the Japanese people have the same feudal mindset as they always did. The people are sheep to the rulers. The rulers take advantage of the people. And the rulers want to go to war. If they do go to war, the people will follow like sheep.

As you can see, not only did I not say that all Japanese want to invade other countries, I specifically said it was only the rulers who want to, and that the people will follow like sheep.

Your post isn't saying much for your reading comprehension abilities.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

June 30,2014 3:50pm=FerdimnandoUchiyama."There are a dozen of positive reasons to change the interpretation and one or two not to change it."< You remind me of a remark made by the former Prime Min ister of Singapore Lee Kan Yu to the effect that "Japan is a special country.Get this through your head that Japan can not be a "normal country." The big rush Mr. Abe has been in for the past few weeks to allow Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defence is so that Japan can go to war. Regardless of how they change the interpretation of argticle 9, let me remind you for your information that the latter half of the same article goes," The right of belligerency will not be recognized." How can Japan go about defending other countries under military attack or go to war to defend them?" All the fuss in the past would bear witness to the lack of logic-mindedness on the part of the coalition government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

StrangerlandJun. 30, 2014 - 01:03PM JST You do realize that I'm reporting a conversation I actually had, right? No, he wasn't talking about that. The actual conversation was a lot longer than the two or three lines I've mentioned in >this thread.

Nice of you to introduce this now. And how do you know that isn't what he's taking about?

"Or did he say to you specifically that "We Japanese all want to go invade another country" as you seem to have interpreted?"

Where do you get that? I never said that, and in fact, I've said something quite different: The fact is, the Japanese people have the same feudal mindset as they always did. The people are sheep to the rulers. The rulers take advantage of the people. And the rulers want to go to war. If they do go to war, the people will follow like sheep.

As you can see, not only did I not say that all Japanese want to invade other countries, I specifically said it was only >the rulers who want to, and that the people will follow like sheep.

You effectively said the same thing, that you believe Japan will go invade other countries again. Whether it's because Japan's leaders want to or every person wants to is irrelevant, it's the country we are talking about,

Your post isn't saying much for your reading comprehension abilities.

Your explanation of how you reached the conclusion that Japan "hasn't changed" is so far, outright ridiculous. Thee level of stereotyping an entire people as "sheep" is both crass and racist. Aren't you following he other news stories about how much dissent there is towards the government's current military plans? Does that look like "sheep" to you?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nice of you to introduce this now. And how do you know that isn't what he's taking about?

Well, I would expect people to realize that most conversations are not 2 sentences long. I apologize for giving you too much credit.

You effectively said the same thing

I did not say the same thing as "We Japanese all want to go invade another country". I was very clear that not all Japanese people want to invade another country.

you believe Japan will go invade other countries again

I believe it's a big enough possibility that they should not be given the opportunity to do so.

Your explanation of how you reached the conclusion that Japan "hasn't changed" is so far, outright ridiculous.

Only because agreeing with me would be admitting you are wrong. And since your pride would never let you do that, you have to keep opposing me.

Aren't you following he other news stories about how much dissent there is towards the government's current military plans? Does that look like "sheep" to you?

A few thousand people out of a country of 130 million. At a really rough estimate, that's about 1/100,000 people.

The fact is, the mindset of the people has not changed, only the environment. The people are still sheep, the rulers still want to be warmongers. The constitution is the barrier preventing this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The definition of "collective self defense" is the right to defend foreign country at war" Which foreign countries are at war now? It will be tough to determine which side Japan will send its troops. Afgan or USA troops? Help Assad? Help Iraq insurgents? Help African and Arabic country natives?

Japan's population has been shrinking. PM Abe is trying to let corporations to employ more women. What kind of troops to send tto outside of Japan? Drafting males or enctraging females to enlist? Or maybe Japan Incs to create combat specialty robots to sell worldwide? There are crisis clean-up robots in use in some dangerous places in USA. It could be joke just like TV program jokes quite while ago. Cheap products, 'Made in Japan'/ Now, complicated expensive products 'Made in Japan".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fox Sora Winters: Obviously you've lived in Japan too long

Actually I don't live in Japan, and I never have. Very far from "too long." My opinions have been formulated from observing the ongoing situation. I've watched as South Korea's government makes a small protest against China's ADIZ, and then nothing at all in protest to China's continuing beligerence. I've watched as South Korea attacks Japan just as China does, by dragging up the past and refusing to see how Japan has changed. I've watched as South Korea demands that Japan improve ties, then actively seeks to worsen them, just as China does. These are the actions of a lapdog Sir_Edgar, and a lapdog needs a master. That master, based on SK's emulation of China, can only be China. I'm not brainwashed, I just see through the BS and propaganda. I'm far more afraid of China resuming its campaign of expansion and an ever strengthening China, than I am of Japan returning to its Imperialist days. The latter requires a change in attitude, something Japan is not known for doing quickly. China doesn't need to change, only to carry on doing what it is doing. Anyone can see that they are the credible threat, not just to Asia, but to the rest of the world as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

StrangerlandJul. 01, 2014 - 08:46AM JST "Nice of you to introduce this now. And how do you know that isn't what he's taking about?" Well, I would expect people to realize that most conversations are not 2 sentences long. I apologize for giving you too >much credit.

In other words you "assumed". So as I asked and you still haven't answered, how do you know that isn't what he's taking about?

"You effectively said the same thing"

I did not say the same thing as "We Japanese all want to go invade another country". I was very clear that not all >Japanese people want to invade another country.

But you feel that the Japanese people "haven't changed" since WWII.

"you believe Japan will go invade other countries again

I believe it's a big enough possibility that they should not be given the opportunity to do so.

That's a pretty psychotic or extremely biased view based on history for the last 70 years.,

"Your explanation of how you reached the conclusion that Japan "hasn't changed" is so far, outright ridiculous.

Only because agreeing with me would be admitting you are wrong. And since your pride would never let you do that, >you have to keep opposing me.

So far you have not made any statement with which I can agree. Your views have been unsubstantiated, and in the case of some comment one person made to you, cryptic leading me to conclude that they are psychotic, or highly biased, but in either case utterly ridiculous. Don't talk to me about "my pride" worry about yours.

"Aren't you following he other news stories about how much dissent there is towards the government's current military plans? Does that look like "sheep" to you?"

A few thousand people out of a country of 130 million. At a really rough estimate, that's about 1/100,000 people. The fact is, the mindset of the people has not changed, only the environment. The people are still sheep, the rulers >still want to be warmongers. The constitution is the barrier preventing this.

The Japanese, the people and their government, are one of the last people on earth today that I would call "warmongers". For 64 years the United States has tried to accomplish what Japan is finally doing now without success because of the Japanese phobia of war. The ONLY country that is potentially a "warmonger" today is China since they've openly stated they need to "prepare for war".

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