Thousands convene for int'l Article 9 conference

Sunday 04th May, 01:42 PM JST

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

› Login to comment

11 Comments

rjd_jr at 10:08 PM JST - 4th May

Amazing and great for them. Yet again another example that flies contrary to the oft put stereotypes of the people and attitudes of this nation.
rjdsr at 11:15 PM JST - 4th May

The protesters have to be stopped. The pro-China lobby is behind keeping Japan neutered. Japan needs to come back and re-assume its role of making Asia better. No more anti-Japan nonsense!
OssanULTRA at 11:45 PM JST - 4th May

We in the US have been paying far too much and far too long to defend Japan. Japan is not the war-torn nation on it's knees that it was after WWII with the Soviets and Red Chinese just across the sea. Japan can afford a fully offense-capable military, in fact has for decades now. In light of the 21st century's security conserns from terrorism to China's non-transparent military buildup, Japan needs to take responsibility equal to it's position as the leading democratic nation in Asia. As to these J-people who think that they can hide behind Article 9 forever, wake up and grow up. Nobody can keep supporting an adult who has all the means of supporting themselves. If the elimination of Article 9 is enough to suddenly draw Japan back to it's pre-WWII militaristic fascist days then trhese people need to wonder if the people of Japan have learned anything or benefitted from the democracy they've had for the last 65 years or so. Time to grow up people.
pathat at 12:02 AM JST - 5th May

We have had the Kellogg-Briand Pact for 80 years and it has not made any real difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briand-Kellogg_pact

The U.S. was at the forefront of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and wrote the current Japanese Constitution with the war-renouncing Article 9, but who is always fighting wars around the world?

I guess the people mentioned in the article believe the SDF should be disbanded, the procurement and development of weapons should be discontinued, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty eliminated, and Japan should simply espouse peace to the world, including its neighbors in East Asia, like China and the Koreas.

O.K., go for it peaceniks. Never fear, nothing will happen. Japan is a much-loved and respected country in the world, especially in this part of the world, and will never need to defend itself.

Peace, peace, peace of the world!
medievaltimes at 12:06 AM JST - 5th May

‘‘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.’’

Forever? Really?? What will you do when the US finally leaves (and it will)?

Answer: You will have to build your own military using your own tax yen. And you will have to deal with Japanese military bases, Japanese aircraft noise, and Japanese military crime.
medievaltimes at 12:27 AM JST - 5th May

and this clearly indicates peace cannot be created by force.

This is a perfect example of classic Japanese denial. Ahhh...look back only a scant 65 years ago. Italy was out. Germany was out. It was the world against the land of the rising sun. But, the oh so glorious way of the warrior said no surrender. Save face. Save honor. Never surrender.

The bushido code is a great way to win a war...IF you win. If you lose, you lose big time.

In the greatest irony, Japan is the great peace loving nation that it is because of how WWII ended.

All you have to do is look objectively at history. But while the rest of the world has moved on, Japan has shown once again it is still dragging its feet.
Nordon at 02:22 AM JST - 5th May

Article 9 is bizarre for an independent country to keep. How long can we expect the US to park it's forces in Japan? It's been 60+ years right now, how much longer?
Alphaape at 09:46 AM JST - 5th May

As a military member, I am against war. After all it will probably be people like me that will have to go and fight it.

But to have an Article in one's constitution to say that war is outlawed to me is a bit naive. I understand that the US (Gen McArthur) had a heavy hand in writing the Japan Constitution, and that it was a different time back then and I am probably sure there was some racial component to it (I don't see Germany with that clause. They made a big point about then West Germany sending troops to help in the first Gulf War, and West Germany was an active member of NATO), but to say that a law to eradicate war is unplausible.

‘‘We believe we can make full use of Article 9 to tackle current global issues, such as poverty and terrorism,’’ said Akira Kawasaki, one of the organizers from Peace Boat. ‘‘We aim to create a new international movement to realize ‘peace without force’ through the ideal of Article 9.’’

It seems to me that terrorist are acting outside of any normal laws in order to achieve their ends. So does this mean that AQ will be willing to sit down, and reasonably discuss that they want to impose Sharia law on a large portion of the world, and we are to negotiate with them as to which persons will have to give up their rights because they were negotiated by someone who "knew what they were doing?"

Humans (and all animals) by nature are violent. You can see it with tribes of chimps who fight other tribes over territory, or other animals who mark their territory and fight any male that enters. We are built to fight. Does that mean that we have to solve all of our differences with warfare, no it does not, but to say to outlaw war and to not allow a country with the tools to adequately defend itself is wishful thinking. Ask Neville Chamberilin.

If we can't live in this country without the police kobans around, or anyother place without a police force, then to think that we can live in a world without war is just not thinking logically. Most wars are started by simple greed (one country wants the resources of another, be it gold, oil, water, food, etc) and if you can't defend yourself, then you will pretty much be walked over.

I think it would be in Japan's best interest to scrap Article 9. Just because you don't have it, does not mean that you are automatically going to go to war over disputes. Step into the 21st century and see that the world is not some big happy place.
OssanULTRA at 10:22 AM JST - 5th May

"But to have an Article in one's constitution to say that war is outlawed to me is a bit naive. I understand that the US (Gen McArthur) had a heavy hand in writing the Japan.."

I believe that Article 9 was entered into the Japanese constitution bny the United States as a trade off in order to keep the Emperor from being prosecuted as the other allied victors wanted his head. MacArthur deemed the removing the Emperor would destabilize the country, which was the last thing we wanted in light of a highly probable Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. From the get go we knew that Artcle 9 was ridiculous in that no country could ever exist without a military "forever". Lo and behold in 1950 when the Korea War broke out we literally "forced" the Japanese to create a paramilitary Police force, the origin of todays Japan Self Defense Forces.
The_Marion at 10:40 AM JST - 5th May

If you want the pure unvarnished truth reference Article 9 of the Peace Constitution. you should read Galan McCormack's book Client State. Japan is already on a par with the very best militaries of Asia, only the Japanese call their military a Self Defense Force, which is largely posted in the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa) and the SDF has a first class Navy, Army and Airforce, but they are also a powerful Plutonium Superpower. Efforts to regain the areas that were taken from them via the Cario Accords is still in vogue and I predict japan is interested in regaing the Marianas Islands. The USA will return to the States and I look for Senkaku Islands to be the trigger that could bring the trillion barrel oil field into play with Japan and China as the principle players.
Alphaape at 12:15 PM JST - 5th May

The Marion, Good points on the JSDF capabilities. True they are one of the better fighting forces in the region, and after working numerous exercises with them, in my opinion I believe that they could conduct themselves well. But the biggest problem they have and anyone in the SDF will tell you is their limitations imposed by their constitution. Basically, they can react after they have been hit. If you can imagine the confusion that occured with the notification of the chain of command when the destroyer hit the fishing boat, can you imagine what will happen if they wait until after a strike by an enemy on Japan?

This by no means that they need to have a "strike first" mentality, but if you never exercise for those types of things because of the limits of your constitution, you will never be ready. Take a look at the US. During the attacks of 9-11, there was confusion as to who was to do what and who was in charge, and we have been practicing war games for over half a century on attacks on the US mainland.

If they removed it, that does not mean that they are ready to rumble. It will give them time to better prepare their forces so as to not only be able to react to an attack, but actually be ready to go on the offensive. Right now, if nK attacked, JMSDF could defend Japan. But if nK pulled back to nK, then the JMSDF would stop. That would give an enemy plenty of opportunity to rebuild and learn from mistakes, while the JSDF would only wait for another attack, since by their constitutuion they are forbidden to carry on the attack outside of Japan territory.