politics

LDP to come up with rough draft on revising pacifist Constitution

60 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

60 Comments
Login to comment

I hope that the LDP pass the amandments and we get the option ofnpre-emptive attacks like most countries

-19 ( +8 / -27 )

And after this 'rough draft' gets rammed through and implemented, expect another kind of draft to come into effect.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Article 9 must prevail. It's really special. I wish we had one

12 ( +21 / -9 )

Daft Draft, like all drafts submitted by Nippon Kaigi/LDP it will end up being their final proposal, with the "pacifist" Komato backing it. What a grubby group of people misguiding the nation.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

This is the part where the citizens (are supposed) march in the streets, expressing their indignation at the country being put in harm's way. And for going backward toward the type of Japan that left so much destruction in the Asia/Pacific last time.

But of course... all we will hear is silence and capitulation muffling the occasional voice of reason.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

If you are interested to learn, how constitution may be changed, read related articles in Japanese constiiiitutioon. English version. This year, only LDP can submit.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, the United States is obliged to protect Japan in close cooperation with the Japan Self-Defense Forces for maritime defense, ballistic missile defense, domestic air control, communications security (COMSEC) and disaster response operations.

So if the reasoning behind there being soo many US military bases in Japan is to simply protect Japan, then why does article 9 need to be changed? It's just a question I'd like to ask other posters.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

LDP needs to be a majority party and other political parties as coalitions.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Abe and his ilk are why the constitution has article 9 in the first place; to prevent chicken hawks from 'pre-emptively' (aka: surprise attack) bombing other countries (like their grandparents did).

With the current constitution, Japan needs to convince one other country to do their pre-emptiveness for them (so they can say, 'We didn't do anything! We're the victims here!')

And with the current boob in charge of the US, convincing them shouldn't be too hard. Abe needs only point and scream: "Little Brown People! With Bombs! SIc 'em!"

6 ( +12 / -6 )

But of course... all we will hear is silence and capitulation muffling the occasional voice of reason.

Oh you didn't get the memo? Reason is they subconsciously support it. Otherwise you'd see a Korea style March down Shibuya. But won't happen. And one day, it will be too late to turn back!!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Amazing if Komeito follows LDP given their pacifist history.

Many Soka Gakkai members care to explain.

Oh oh sorry - I meant Komeito members.

Komeito has nothing to do with Soka Gakkai.

I know that because the Soka Gakkai tell me that when they call to ask for support for Komeito.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Japan absolutely should revise it's constitution. The first part of ARt 9 renouncing war is great and should be kept. But the second paragraph needs to reflect the reality of the existence of the JSDF.

AgentXToday 08:24 am JST And for going backward toward the type of Japan that left so much destruction in the Asia/Pacific last time.

Really? Is there now going to bean Army Minister and Navy Minister in the cabinet? Is there going to be military control over the media and persecution of those deemed harmful to the State by the Kempeitai? Is the Emperor going to be reinstated as a living God and Japan return to being an Empire? If not, you're just parroting the usual CP propaganda. You know, the one where they wine about Japan returning to Imperial conquest while they claim the entire South China Sea and disregard international legal rulings.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

Stuart haywardToday 08:56 am

So if the reasoning behind there being soo many US military bases in Japan is to simply protect Japan, then why does article 9 need to be changed? It's just a question I'd like to ask other posters.

Firstly, the high number of bases in Japan serves both to protect Japan under the Mutual Defense Treaty but also to serve as the forward front of US strategic power. We are talking both conventional and nuclear capability.

Secondly, for some 65 years the US has been in the absurd position of being obligated to defend Japan while the reverse was not true. Finally collective defense has been adopted and the U.S. Austrailia, UK, France, as well as other Asian nations feeling threatened by China's territorial ambitions would like increased Japanese participation in maintaining the peace and security of the region.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

The moment Japanese people welcome this, it will be proof of nothing learnt from attrocities past and any and all afflicted nations should claim reparations immediately after the fact!!

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Article 9 is just the talking point at the moment other changes include yes reinstating the Emperor as head of state and revered in law. Supersede individual rights with an obligation to the state. The list is available on Wikipedia, very scary. Article 9 is the toe in the door for huge changes that empower the state to return to the 1930s.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

LDP can't change anything till approved by a referendum, their proposal needs to be approved first.

Yes, the 1st attempted Constitution change since WWII.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Is there going to be military control over the media and persecution of those deemed harmful to the State by the Kempeitai?

Dude, it's not so far removed from that even now.

Japan has carefully stacked everything ever since the war so that when they get the 'green light' they can quickly get back into an offensive position. Japan produces advanced weapons, has a comprehensive nuclear program (albeit an incompetent one), a population of people that don't have the ability to keep their leaders in check etc etc etc.

It's delusional to that think Japan won't quickly regress to something that resembles the former Imperial Japan once the muzzle is taken off.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

The Liberal Democratic Party said Tuesday it plans to present a working draft to a party panel discussing revisions to the pacifist Constitution, even as party President and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's amendment drive seems to have lost some steam after a plunge in his Cabinet's support ratings.

Because these muppets can't let a good crisis go to waste. That fat tub of lard in North Korea has given the muppet we are forced to swallow as PM here the cover and reasoning he needs to get rid of article 9. Oh! Its all about North Korea! We have to revise the constitution because of North Korea!  Article 9 is the best excuse for Japan NOT to get dragged into unneccessary US wars like the UK is constantly being forced into. Its also kept the SDF forces in Japan mostly, which has been excellent for disaster relief measures. Watching the SDF mobilize rescue efforts in Tohoku in 2011 and more recently in Kyushu is another important yet overlooked reason why article 9 should never be changed.  We need them here.

Article 9 is just the talking point at the moment other changes include yes reinstating the Emperor as head of state and revered in law. Supersede individual rights with an obligation to the state. The list is available on Wikipedia, very scary. Article 9 is the toe in the door for huge changes that empower the state to return to the 1930s.

Of course! That has been Nippon Kaigi's plan all along.

Japan has carefully stacked everything ever since the war so that when they get the 'green light' they can quickly get back into an offensive position. Japan produces advanced weapons, has a comprehensive nuclear program (albeit an incompetent one), a population of people that don't have the ability to keep their leaders in check etc etc etc.

Agree

It's delusional to that think Japan won't quickly regress to something that resembles the former Imperial Japan once the muzzle is taken off.

Absolutely!!

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Abe was noolt born yet in 1947 when constitution became legal. He may have planning of modernizing Article 16. I doubt he will try again on Article 9.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I wonder why foreigners are so strongly against changing the constitution - far more than Japanese people themselves.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

hanges include yes reinstating the Emperor as head of state and revered in law. Supersede individual rights with an obligation to the state. The list is available on Wikipedia, very scary. Article 9 is the toe in the door for huge changes that empower the state to return to the 1930s.

Talk about fear mongering through half lies to fit one's needs.

Concerning the Emperor;

(第1章 天皇)

・天皇は元首であり、日本国及び日本国民統合の象徴。

Meaning the constitution reaffirms his position as Constitutional Monarchy that he shall reign but shall not rule.

and the rights within the state;

(第9章 緊急事態)

・外部からの武力攻撃、地震等による大規模な自然災害などの法律で定める緊急事態において、内閣総理大臣が緊急事態を宣言し、これに伴う措置を行えることを規定。

UNDER NATIONAL EMERGENCY through threat from abroad or through large scale natural disaster, the Prime Minister reserves rights to proclaim national emergency and carry out what is required.

Basically it is the same anywhere around the world.

https://www.jimin.jp/activity/colum/116667.html

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

even as party President and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's amendment drive seems to have lost some steam after a plunge in his Cabinet's support ratings.

NHK this morning reported that abes support is totally amazing. it was a totally amazing survey of 1000 people chosen by NHK, of a country of 12000000 people, so must be amazing true.

"We want to present the language of a clause as a springboard for discussions"

translated to english..."there is no opposition so we can do what the # we want to, and what are you gonna do about it?!"

@gaijipapa. thanks.

The Soka Gakkai possesses considerable economic and social influence in Japan. The Soka Gakkai now owns most of the land around Shinanomachi Station in Shinjuku, Tokyo. This includes the offices of its newspaper, the Seikyo Shimbun, which has a readership base of 5.5 million.[240] Forbes magazine estimated that the organization has an income of at least $1.5 billion per year.[241] Religion scholar Hiroshi Shimada has estimated the wealth of the Soka Gakkai at ¥500 billion.[242]

SGI's president, Daisaku Ikeda, has been described by journalist Teresa Watanabe as one of the most powerful and enigmatic individuals in Japan. 12 million members worldwide,

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ahem, Ikeda-Sensei stepped down as Soka Gakkai President years ago. He still has a role in SGI though!?

Soka Gakkai International is different from Soka Gakkai, SGI membes(non-japanese can"t vote here).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I want strong JSDF so that we will not be intimidated by our neighboring countries.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

AgentXToday 09:37 am JSTIs there going to be military control over the media and persecution of those deemed harmful to the State by the Kempeitai?

Dude, it's not so far removed from that even now.

Japan has carefully stacked everything ever since the war so that when they get the 'green light' they can quickly get back into an offensive position. Japan produces advanced weapons, has a comprehensive nuclear program (albeit an incompetent one), a population of people that don't have the ability to keep their leaders in check etc etc etc.

It is the United States that forced Article 9 on a defeated Japan. But by 1950 we FORCED Japan to contradict paragraph 2 of Art 9 by creating the JSDF. Since the Korean war ended (by armistice) the US has continuously put pressure on Japan to revise it's constitution. And at every turn Japan used Article 9 as an excuse to turn us down. The near breaking point was the 1991 Gulf war I when Japan was shamed into paying for the coalition operations against Hussein. The real breaking point was started by China when they ripped up Sino-Japanese Treaty of Friendship (1972/1978) and adopted an anti-Japan policy and turned the Senkakus into a dispute. Now we have the continuing North Korean threat. Japan indeed has the ability to build advanced weapons, they are already working together with the U.S. Japan certainly has nuclear capability but the necessity is negated by the US nuclear umbrella, same as South Korea and Australia. Today's Japan is far cry from the 1930s, and just looking at the news will tell you that while Japan may be far from a perfect democracy, as many "democratic" countries are, their leaders are kept in check far too often.

It's delusional to that think Japan won't quickly regress to something that resembles the former Imperial Japan once the muzzle is taken off.

No, it's delusional to think that 21st century Japan is capable of reverting to an Imperial dictatorship. The kind of absurd argument put forward by CPP propaganda, where a totalitarian unelected regime remains in power, fearful of democracy. China and North Korea today in 2017 are close facsimiles of 1930s fascist Imperial Japan.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Today's Japan is far cry from the 1930s, and just looking at the news will tell you that while Japan may be far from a perfect democracy, as many "democratic" countries are, their leaders are kept in check far too often.

That just goes to show how little you know about what's under the skin of Japanese society. Don't let all the bright lights and 'kawaii culture' distract you.

Do you even live and work in Japan?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

AgentX do you?

Care to enlighten us long-term residents?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Doomed to repeat history...there's a reason why Japan has a "peace" constitution, it didn't just appear one day ex nihilo.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The first-ever and most important issue Japan must deal with is what to do about the U.S. military presence, a seamless carry-over from the Occupation days. The pro-revision camp doesn't realize the occupation is still continuing even to this day in a disguised form. Okinawa embodies this state of affairs most conspicuously. In other words, law makers must discuss, before anything else, how to make the nation a genuine sovereignty and escape from being a mere U.S. vassal.

They must know that it is the U.S. that is eagerly waiting for Article 9 of the constitution to be scrapped so that the JSDF can fight global wars along with U.S. forces. Thus, the revision of the constitution means Japan would be a U.S. vassal for good. The revision of the constitution is like summer bugs plunge into fire of their own choice. A fool only hunts for misfortune.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Care to enlighten us long-term residents?

There is plenty of wisdom in this thread if you are open to it.

Doesn't matter how long someone has lived here if they go through everyday with blinkers on.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Basically it is the same anywhere around the world.

Smoke and mirrors.

Abe is using 'look, we're just bringing Japan into line with other countries, it's all quite normal' to sneak in some pretty radical stuff.

Leaving aside the Article 9 problem, over which there will surely be much wrangling, the proposed changes include:

日本国の歴史や文化、国や郷土を自ら守る日本国の歴史や文化、国や郷土を自ら守る気概などを表明

-manifestation of the spirit/guts to protect in person the history, culture, nation and homeland of Japan

Anyone like to hazard a guess as to how the history of Japan is to be protected?

家族の尊重、家族は互いに助け合うことを規定

-respect for the family, stipulation that family members must help each other

This seems to either clash with or replace the すべて国民は、個人として尊重される (Every citizen shall be respected as an individual) In other words, don't expect any help from the state in caring for your aged parents when they need 24/7 care, or any help with special-needs kids. They're your family, you deal with it. If your drunken dissolute brother runs up gambling debts, you pay them. If your 85-year-old grandad who shouldn't be driving anyway mistakes the accelerator for the brake and smashes into a shop window, you pay for all the damage and medical bills.

And the biggest problem -

憲法改正の発議要件を衆参それぞれの過半数に緩和。

-Amendments to the constitution shall require a simple majority vote in both houses

At present a two-thirds majority in both houses plus a simple majority in a national vote are needed to change the Constitution. This is an easy foot-in-the-door tactic allowing future governments with the tiniest of majorities to make all kinds of changes, with no checks. This is most certainly not 'basically the same anywhere around the world'. Most democracies as far as I can tell require a supermajority.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Thank you CLEO I was at a loss to explain how dangerous this whole proposition is. But you did it...sweet.

we are on the same page who'd have thought. ;-) There is no public debat, informed debat on TV it's just wrong the direction this is taking.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

OssanAmerican

Thank you for replying, thanks for the information and your opinion.

So you're saying article 9 also serves the US by Japan providing a forward front for strategic power. That still doesn't answer why Japan needs to change article 9?

Though it might seem absurd to you, it was the US that created this system, Japan had very little say in the matter. So far, the system has appeared to work well and Japan has had peace for quite some time, why would we want to change it?

While you and several other countries perceive China's ambitions as a great threat, they are not at a constant state of war, like the great "protectors of peace", the US. I'm personally more concerned of this who say we have to FIGHT for PEACE, that phrase is about as logical as "screwing for virginity."

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@ Smith the comparison is unfair, one has a docile population, the other a fearful population but both have a head strong leader intent on leading their population into a black tunnel with a light and a grandparent beckoning them.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's all fun and games until the air attack sirens start wailing...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

More half truths?

日本国の歴史や文化、国や郷土を自ら守る日本国の歴史や文化、国や郷土を自ら守る気概などを表明

-manifestation of the spirit/guts to protect in person the history, culture, nation and homeland of Japan

The full sentence is;

(前文)

国民主権、基本的人権の尊重、平和主義の三つの原則を継承しつつ、日本国の歴史や文化、国や郷土を自ら守る気概などを表明。

In which it states that, the Sovereignty resides with the citizens with fundamental human rights and will carry on the three fundamental ideals of peace declaring that we as a sovereignty will show the spirit to protect culture, history, nation and birthplace.

Although this preamble is too obvious and taken for granted in most other nations I believe it is a good starting point.

Concerning obligations and rights of Citizens

(第3章 国民の権利及び義務)

・選挙権(地方選挙を含む)について国籍要件を規定。

・家族の尊重、家族は互いに助け合うことを規定。

・環境保全の責務、在外国民の保護、犯罪被害者等への配慮を新たに規定。

Again too obvious to even right them down.

The obligation and right to cast a vote including local elections for whom obtains Japanese citizenship

Obligations to help other family members

Obligations to take care of the surroundings, expats and victims of crime shall also be newly included.

It does not say anywhere that the the nation has no obligations to take care of of here citizens.

Basically that is written within another article.

As for amendment to change the constitution

(第10章 改正)

・憲法改正の発議要件を衆参それぞれの過半数に緩和。

Amendments to article 10

Will ease the requirement for proposal to simple majority at both houses. They still need to pass it through a national referendum and nations like Australia, Italy, Ireland also follows this rule .

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

too obvious to even right them down.

Then why is it suddenly necessary to make a point of writing them down?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Then why is it suddenly necessary to make a point of writing them down?

Because these days they are abused and not carried out.

Common sense not written as law is not punishable.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Common sense not written as law is not punishable.

Sounds like something Stalin would've said as he was dreaming up legal changes...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Sounds like something Stalin would've said as he was dreaming up legal changes...

Except Stalin will never write;

The Sovereignty resides with the citizens with fundamental human rights and will carry on the three fundamental ideals of peace declaring that we as a sovereignty will show the spirit to protect culture, history, nation and birthplace.

As preamble, it will squash any and all of his dreams becoming a dictator.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The constitution Japan currently lives under was crafted by an occupation force. That is the reality. WW2 ended 73 years ago. The relationship between Japan and the U.S, not to mention Japan and the rest of the world has dramatically transformed. In fact, its hard to imagine a relationship that has been more transformed for the better, except for perhaps Germany and its neighbours. Japan is, generally speaking, widely respected in the international community. No other country, other than China, is voicing any concern about the modest efforts Japan has taken to modernise and increase the capabilities of the SDF. Quite the opposite.

It is high time the Japanese people crafted their own constitution which gives them the capability of having a traditional military for all purposes. It is 2017. The fact is that Japan resides in an increasingly dangerous neighbourhood. With a rogue NK regime, a very powerful and somewhat hostile China and what continues to be unresolved issues with South Korea. Even though officially there were meant to be resolved. No other country of reasonable capability would tolerate continuing to abide by a constitution written by an occupation force half a century or more ago.

Why should the Japanese?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

He doesn't need to try to become a dictator. That is not his agenda. Nippon Kaigi will do quite well out of it, though.

Also, "ideals of peace" and "fundamental human rights" certainly are interpreted differently by J-politicians now as they always have. They don't need to change the constitution to do more about policing fundamental human rights here. Certainly smells badly of an agenda.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Fundamental human rights is written within the present constitution;

Article 13 すべて国民は、法の下に平等であって、人種、信条、性別、社会的身分または門地によ り、政治的、経済的又は社会的関係において差別されない。(All natural persons are equal before the law. No discrimination shall be authorized or tolerated in political, economic or social relations on account of race, creed, sex, social status, caste or national origin.)

Probably different from a communist state I believe.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The fact that (despite reports of firm control of national broadcasting by the current administration) the regular pacifist coverage of the summer memorial events (the "conventional" destruction Okinawa with Tokyo and other cities, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the surrender, and so forth) continued on as usual. Individuals can express pacifist opinions freely still, even on NHK (national TV, radio). I have not heard of these persons being cat-called as "Hanoi Jane" or the like. It seems to me, compared with the American experience, a very friendly climate for peaceniks, despite some alleged ENRYO (restraint) about gathering many demonstrators in Nagoya years ago for one alleged demo. The dethroning of the requirement to think as a pacifist in schooling has (I hope) not crushed the persons who remain so or now choose this option. Perhaps court cases concerning teachers who have protested the flag or anthem (now officially national) losing routine privileges through deliberate discrimination remain being appealed (?)--I have not been so fervent in following this thread. What is a symbol? Can it change? Should we abandon the Arlington Memorial Cemetery to defuse American warring?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Fundamental human rights is written within the present constitution;

Article 13 すべて国民は、法の下に平等であって、人種、信条、性別、社会的身分または門地によ り、政治的、経済的又は社会的関係において差別されない。(All natural persons are equal before the law. No discrimination shall be authorized or tolerated in political, economic or social relations on account of race, creed, sex, social status, caste or national origin.)

And that just proves how illogically the J-politicians interpret and abuse their own constitution. Human rights? Ha! No discrimination? Yeah, right!

-manifestation of the spirit/guts to protect in person the history, culture, nation and homeland of Japan

Seeing how loosely and illogically Japan interprets their constitution when it suits them, does that mean they will use the above passage to take out any one of the many nations nearby that hate Japan (because of Japan's shocking history of human rights abuses and its failure to take responsibility for them)?

Preemptively take out Korea (first North then South), because Japan wants to "protect in person the history, culture, nation and homeland of Japan" ?

It is insanity to give Japan the ability to wage war again.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Triring:

Please take a look at the DPRK constitution. They have more rights on paper than Sweden. Just because its written down doesn't make it true.

Cricky:

The emperor is the head of state now; he has the same symbol of state (non-executive) power as the King of Sweden, rather than the reserve executive power of the British Queen or full executive power of the American president.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Please take a look at the DPRK constitution. They have more rights on paper than Sweden. Just because its written down doesn't make it true.

Also true of the fomer Soviet Union. Great looking consitution on paper.

And, what about Britain? No written constitution in the US or Japanese sense. No supreme court until relatively recently.

This is the part where the citizens (are supposed) march in the streets, expressing their indignation at the country being put in harm's way. And for going backward toward the type of Japan that left so much destruction in the Asia/Pacific last time.

But of course... all we will hear is silence and capitulation muffling the occasional voice of reason.

That will almost certainly come. Postwar Japan has seen many very large scale anti-government demonstrations. It's a bit early in the game to be going out into the streets.

Curious that no one has mentioned article 96. It is much more important than article 9. It reads

Amendments to this Constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast thereon, at a special referendum or at such election as the Diet shall specify.

If this gets changed to something that makes it easier to amend the Constitution any government that comes along whether it is LDP or JCP could alter the Constitution to suit its convenience.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

When GHQ decided Japan to have new constitution,, no one in GHQ were fluent in Japanese language. As for Japan, Japanese. Family whoooo send their children too study English. usually sent them to England. But Japan needed a person who. learned American English. One day, two gov't officially waited aat a rail,roa station tooo wait for counnteessa Torii and convinced her. Toohelp Constitution change Skipping. why she heled, GHQ assigned legal officer Kadis. She translated Meiji Constitution. She went Gakusuuin but unlike many other Yamaguchi trefecture samurai, her family id not get noble status and her school life was not easy. Soo she loved America. At that time, British English. is not need Her iðea of Democracy. were piled in constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abe probably will. Be ready for Article 16 change. Draft in next year August. He robablyb drop. Article 9 idea. He will strength JSDF with increased budget

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@christina. we have state security bill, state secrets bill and conspiracy bill. go figure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stuart haywardSep. 13  12:42 pm JST

OssanAmerican

Thank you for replying, thanks for the information and your opinion.

So you're saying article 9 also serves the US by Japan providing a forward front for strategic power. That still doesn't answer why Japan needs to change article 9?

Did you read my post? I stated:

"Secondly, for some 65 years the US has been in the absurd position of being obligated to defend Japan while the reverse was not true. Finally collective defense has been adopted and the U.S. Austrailia, UK, France, as well as other Asian nations feeling threatened by China's territorial ambitions would like increased Japanese participation in maintaining the peace and security of the region."

Though it might seem absurd to you, it was the US that created this system, Japan had very little say in the matter. So far, the system has appeared to work well and Japan has had peace for quite some time, why would we want to change it?

Why should I find that absurd? Did you read my post? I stated :

"It is the United States that forced Article 9 on a defeated Japan. But by 1950 we FORCED Japan to contradict paragraph 2 of Art 9 by creating the JSDF. "

2 ( +2 / -0 )

OssanAmerican

Yes, I did read you post and highlighted one of your responses.

I also pointed out why your other response is kind of invalid to the discussion. IT WAS THE U.S. WHO CREATED THE AGREEMENT, NOT JAPAN and the fact that Japan couldn't defend the U.S. Was and is part of that very same agreement.

Your other reason is because some other countries have a collective defense with the US, Japan should have to do it to?

Maintaining the peace? Has China attacked any of those countries you mentioned?

or are you referring to playing the dangerous excalation game of "show of force" war games and so on? Since each side only seem to react by raising the stakes, I don't see how it could be considered a way of "maintaining the peace"

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Stuart haywardToday 08:32 am JSTOssanAmerican

Yes, I did read you post and highlighted one of your responses.

I also pointed out why your other response is kind of invalid to the discussion. IT WAS THE U.S. WHO CREATED THE AGREEMENT, NOT JAPAN and the fact that Japan couldn't defend the U.S. Was and is part of that very same agreement.

And how is that "invalid to the discussion"?

Your other reason is because some other countries have a collective defense with the US, Japan should have to do it to?

Of course it should. It's a "MUTUTAL DEFENSE TREATY". Your country is obligated to defend North Korea from attack under a 1961 Defense Agreement. Would you feel that it is a fair agreement if North Korea had no obligation at all to help China is it were attacked?

Maintaining the peace? Has China attacked any of those countries you mentioned?

Yes. China by entering the Korean war in 1950 on the side of North Korea to fight the UN Command have attacked US, British, Australian troops and those of many other nations. In addition, China has attacked India and Vietnam, and both nations are extremely against Chinese expansionism.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OssanAmerican

I already pointed out why it's invalid, The US was the creator and enforcer of the agreement and until they completely release Japan of that, it's still in their hands.

If the US allowed that, the people of Japan can write their own constitution and let the public vote to make the changes one way or another.

Again, the "Mutual Defence Treaty" was mostly created by the US and other countries decided to join it or not but that's not the case for Japan.

In regards to the last point, you are correct (and I was wrong), I didn't even consider it because it happened so long ago but I doubt all this newly perceived threat is stemming from the Korean War. I was referring to the present and the only physical actions China has taken recently (that those countries are threatened by), is building an Island and claiming it's their right. I don't agree with that action and do feel it's very troublesome and wrong but it's not an act of war either. We simply disagree on how to respond and react to that action.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Stuart haywardToday 10:42 am JSTOssanAmerican

I already pointed out why it's invalid, The US was the creator and enforcer of the agreement and until they completely release Japan of that, it's still in their hands.

Wrong. The US is not in a position to "release" Japan from the terms of the Agreement. In fact both sides have the right to terminate the Agreement by giving prior notice.

"ARTICLE X This Treaty shall remain in force until in the opinion of the Governments of Japan and the United States of America there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance of international peace and security in the Japan area. However, after the Treaty has been in force for ten
years, either Party may give notice to the other Party of its intention to terminate the Treaty, in which case the Treaty shall terminate one year after such notice has been given."

If the US allowed that, the people of Japan can write their own constitution and let the public vote to make the changes one way or another.

Wrong. It is not something that the US can "allow".

Again, the "Mutual Defence Treaty" was mostly created by the US and other countries decided to join it or not but that's not the case for Japan.

Wrong. The "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan" is unique to Japan and the United States and other countries are not and cannot be a party to it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Stuart haywardToday 10:42 am JSTOssanAmerican

In regards to the last point, you are correct (and I was wrong), I didn't even consider it because it happened so long ago but I doubt all this newly perceived threat is stemming from the Korean War. I was referring to the present and the only physical actions China has taken recently (that those countries are threatened by), is building an Island and claiming it's their right. I don't agree with that action and do feel it's very troublesome and wrong but it's not an act of war either. We simply disagree on how to respond and react to that action.

When a totalitarian dictatorship chooses to unilaterally expand it's territory against the opinions of the international community and established rule of international law, when it tells the world that there is no intent to :militarize" then proceeds to militarize, such actions can lead to war, Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did this 70-80 years ago. And we all know what eventually happened. China is following the exact same pattern today. China is the country that needs to learn from history.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@TriringSep. 13 01:17 pm JST

国民主権、基本的人権の尊重、平和主義の三つの原則を継承しつつ、日本国の歴史や文化、国や郷土を自ら守る気概などを表明。

Do you notice that according to this statement, previously, the first three are the only considerations. Now there is another, very broad reaching consideration. When you add considerations, the only possible result is the dilution of the already extant ones. For example, you can use the "determination to defend history" clause to support the idea that only one version of history that's "protective of Japan's culture" is to be promulgated.

・選挙権(地方選挙を含む)について国籍要件を規定。

Depending on your point of view, this is a de facto kick in the rights of those who lived here for a long time, may be paying taxes and contributing to the Japanese economy, but are nevertheless barred from voting due to failure to meet nationality requirements.

・家族の尊重、家族は互いに助け合うことを規定。

I might CHOOSE to respect and help my family. The State should not be mandating me to do so.

犯罪被害者等への配慮を新たに規定。

You can only INCREASE protection of victims by decreasing the rights of the defendant, though it is the latter that's most at risk of being a victim to the avarice of the State.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do you notice that according to this statement, previously, the first three are the only considerations. Now there is another, very broad reaching consideration. When you add considerations, the only possible result is the dilution of the already extant ones. For example, you can use the "determination to defend history" clause to support the idea that only one version of history that's "protective of Japan's culture" is to be promulgated.

Nope since there is no definitive statement that states that there is only one version of history, with this one can go to court taking the government that they are distorting history and the court requires to listen to this claim if it is written within the constitution.

Depending on your point of view, this is a de facto kick in the rights of those who lived here for a long time, may be paying taxes and contributing to the Japanese economy, but are nevertheless barred from voting due to failure to meet nationality requirements.

So, expat are guest not citizens even if they pay taxes. You have a choice to leave if you want. There is the naturalizing route if you want to participate in Japanese politics. The choice is yours and nobody is forcing you.

By the ways you gain all benefits of redistribution income collected through the tax system both local and national. You just don't get to vote on how that redistribution is made.

I might CHOOSE to respect and help my family. The State should not be mandating me to do so.

I beg to differ you hold stronger responsibilities to your close relatives like identifying a deceased, and so on since this rule does not engage into personal rights so you are only asked to help with in you personal capacity not beyond it.

You can only INCREASE protection of victims by decreasing the rights of the defendant, though it is the latter that's most at risk of being a victim to the avarice of the State.

How about privacy from the media? Providing first aid? Providing shelter? Again this does not address about personal rights so it is within your personal discretion.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Of course hence the 'Missile launch, take cover': Another terrifying wake-up call for Japanese to get support

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's astounding, how many constitutional scholars and regional politics experts we have here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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