• 14

    Wei Keat Tan

    No. In fact, all countries in the world should have Article 9 in their constitution.

  • 12

    USNinJapan2

    If you answered 'No' then don't complain about the US military being stationed here.

  • 9

    zichi

    Its Article 9 which makes Japan unique among nations.

  • 6

    SamuraiBlue

    Although Japan does not need to scrap article 9 entirely. Realistically speaking it needs to be amended or the troops that will be fighting in case of war is going to be wipped hard with no shielding through the Geneva convention. Presently JSDF personnel are considered civilian public service people like the police. During war they are not allowed to shoot since they are considered civilians and will be trialed and executed under enemy law if caught. There are other law related problems considering the JSDF that needs to be questioned that can only be done through amendment of article 9.

  • 5

    slumdog

    Its Article 9 which makes Japan unique among nations.

    I think it is more the fact they've continued to keep it that makes Japan unique.

  • 3

    neobios

    I choose "yes" because I find the article does not reflect the current Japan anymore. It is outdated and outcast.

    When China send a surveillance plane over the disputed islands, Japan send eight F-15 fighter jets which would escalate to war in an instance. The article in my opinion might as well scrapped as it has lost its value if you know what I mean.

    I believe every nation has the right to defend their own people, Japan or China they are responsible for their action.

  • 3

    Fadamor

    Article 9 (I don't know why I thought it was Article 8) was established by the American Occupation Authorities, but it was one that was whole-heartedly agreed-upon by the Japanese people at the time. During the war years the general public had been lied to by the military and the people were disgusted with the military and the wars they had justified with lies. The Japanese public never heard about the Nanking Massacre, the Manila Massacre, nor the Bataan Death-March until the various war crimes trials were conducted AFTER the surrender. The revulsion and utter disgust for the military when the details of those atrocities were made public made the acceptance of Article 9 one of the easiest articles to be accepted by the public.

    Now... the people who were lied to in the 1940's are mostly dead, and their children don't have the same feelings of digust that their parents did. As the time of surrender passes farther into history, it seems that Japan has a harder time understanding why the Article was put in place at all.

    I will not answer the question this article poses, as I am not a resident of Japan. This is something only the people of Japan can answer. I hope that they can do so with a clear understanding of their history.

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    JoeBigsDec. 17, 2012 - 11:17AM JST

    Japan needs to scrap that outdated piece of their Constitution and take control of it's own future. Japan after 60 years in NO active duty in combat? Fail. You are only heading to a slaughter house. It takes a precision training and skills. Your childish wish only works on computer games. Keep dremin.....

  • 2

    tokyomusing

    Lets be honest. The only reason Japan wasn't the 2nd largest force in every war the US has been involved in since WW2 was because of Article 9. Without it, Japan would have been forced (yes FORCED) by the US into participating into the folly that was Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korean War, etc...

    The only reason America wants that change is so they can save money and send Japanese kids into battle instead of American kids. All you people saying article 9 should change must be over 30 - ergo you don't have to fight a war ever. Article 9 in Japan just means renouncing war as a means to an end. And Japan if invaded would be just fine - what Japanese person will stop and say 'oh I can't fight' if an enemy army is trying to take their land? I doubt they would care about 'law' at all in that case.

    You Americans don't understand not being able to use war as a tool because you believe threat of war is a threat at all. But your wars have accomplished very little over the last 50 years except to make your rich richer and send your poor to graves in foreign lands. Japan doesn't need that and doesn't want that. Better to have a peaceful Japan that defends it's own territory without unnecessarily causing arms races in the region.

  • 2

    Dennis Bauer

    Changing Article 9 would only put another strain on Japanese budget. If China really would attack Japan, the Americans would retaliate IMHO.

  • 2

    Cos

    I think they will have to modify it. Renouncing to war outside their territory should be kept at 100% (so they should remodify what Koizumi changed) as J-armies have no business in Iraq or wherever. But the defense of Japan, as Thomas Anderson said, that's already what the JSDF has done for ages, so it's BS. That mission has to go back totally and officially to JSDF, and be decided in Tokyo.

    Its Article 9 which makes Japan unique among nations.

    It's not the 4 seasons ?

  • 2

    Michael Craig

    No. Because of Article 9, Japan never fired a shot at any country since the war ended, no fired back!

    Scrapping it may meany fighting in wars everywhere, but then Japan will be a target of terrorists, hostile countries, etc.

  • 2

    megosaa

    THE BEST POST!!

    Wei Keat TanDEC. 17, 2012 - 11:36AM JST No. In fact, all countries in the world should have Article 9 in their constitution.

  • 2

    Kabukilover

    You should worry about who is pushing the abolition of Article 9. It is the Japanese right-wing, composed of the same sort of people gave us Imperial Japan, the war, near total destruction and two atom bombings. It is the sort of people who either deny or downplay the Nanjing massacre. It is the same sort people, like Abe, who deny the truth about comfort women.

    These people are dangerous to Japanese democracy and Japanese peace. Don't tell me it cannot happen here. It already has.

    It is a fact that Japan stayed out of all of the US ill-begotten wars since WWII because of Article 9 and because all but the most rabid nationalists did not want a repeat of what Japan went through.

    We will have a military-industrial complex even if we do not go to war. Good-by social welfare. Hello all our money going into the military.

    Things are bad enough already. Militarization of Japan will make things a lot worse.

  • 1

    Novenachama

    We know that majority of Japanese citizens approve the article 9 and consider it personally important. But there has slowly been a shift away from a stance that would tolerate no alteration of the article to allowing a revision that would resolve the discord between Japan's Self-Defense Force and article 9. Additionally quite a few citizens consider that Japan should allow itself to commit the Self-Defense Force to collective defense efforts like those agreed to in the United Nations Security Council in the past during the Gulf War. Let's see what happens now that Abe Shinzo has gotten elected. Will he call for a bold review of the Japanese Constitution to allow the country to take a large role in global security and foster a revival of national pride. We will have to wait and see if it's going to be a checkmate.

  • 1

    kurisupisu

    Imagine the situation where Japan goes to war with 1.China, a nation with nuclear weapons and 2.North Korea, a nation with nuclear weapons. If I were a foe of Japan where would I send my nuclear weapons? Tokaimura,Monju,Ohi,Tango....?

    So, let's start a war Japan and obliterate the northern hemisphere?

  • 1

    YuriOtani

    Thomas you complain about the right wingers in Japan and then say lets remove the limitations of Japan making war. Japan is at peace and we are not interested in getting involved in other peoples wars. Look at what happen the last time Japan did this.

  • 1

    YuriOtani

    There is no reason for Japan to process a offensive capability. We are a peaceful people and it would make other countries nervous. While we can battle the Peoples Navy on the high seas we lack the ability to attack their countries. They also know Japan will NEVER throw the first punch. Having atomic bombs in Japan would open us up to a attack.

    The Americans want Japan to help fight their wars, so sorry we are peaceful now.

  • 1

    YuriOtani

    Thomas so you would like Japan to process the bomb? With a little modification the H-2 can be used as an ICBM. What if there is a falling out with America? Have no ideal of why you want to let the genie out of the bottle. You dislike the right wing but want them to arm? Makes no sense to me.

  • 1

    gogogo

    With boobs like Ishihawa hell no

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    Thomas... this discussion is about Article 9 and whether to abolish it... not to debate whether or not the Japanese people should be forced to confront the horrors of what their ancestors did.

  • 0

    Beer4me

    Japan helped China by sending technology to it homeland and what do they do? Steal it and say its there's Japan helped Korea and what do they do? The same! Lets stop giving away technology and start rebuilding for a better Japan!

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    Kazuaki Shimazaki

    First, a few things need to be cleared up. You do not need to be an Army to be considered a lawful, privileged combatant. Besides, it is customary international law to treat the SDF as a military, so it will be very rich for China or Korea (note I do not necessarily exclude the risk of South Korea) to deny it at the last moment.

    I believe this is a nieve opinion. Adversary will use any and every means to justify their activity and will utilize any opinion at it's fullest.

    What will mothers and fathers say if their son were not killed in action but executed as unlawful civilians?

    Fathers and mothers although it will be difficult to accept it brings closure for their sons and daughters killed in line of duty but if they were executed after a trial it only brings dispair and grief with no closure. It will be difficult for Japan to object since within the Japanese constitution it declares that it has NO military.

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    So some posters on here want Japan to become a peaceful paradise where power is generated in a planet-friendly manner... and on the other hand form a proper army so they can attack other countries.

    Once you renounce Article 9, what then? Change the constitution to allow the SDF... sorry, armed forces... allow Japan's armed forces to have and use nuclear weapons? You remove that one little rivet and the whole thing comes undone. Japanese people are already ant-military... this will only make that worse.

  • 0

    jessebaybay

    I dont know enough about article 9 to vote. Time to do some research.

  • 0

    Virtuoso

    If you think taxes in Japan are high now, wait until the country is saddled with its own home-grown military-industrial complex. No thanks.

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    Virtuoso

    Too late Japan already has one and the military equipment that J government purchases are higher then the one sold internationally due to licence procurement and the now recently dropped self embargo to export those equipements.

  • 0

    Fadamor

    Here's an interesting talk with Professor Miyadai and Prof. Wolferen, regarding Article 9 and keeping peace:

    ... in an article that was published on January 1, 2004 AND in an article where you've left out some of the initial response to the question. (Selective editing?)

    What are your views on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and efforts to revise the Japanese Constitution?

    Miyadai: Japanese people have a tendency to forget. They do not remember the history behind the Japan-U.S. security treaty. When the treaty was first signed in 1951, then Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, along with most Japanese people, saw it as providing a foothold for the nation's anti-American nationalist movement.

    All of Japan's different political camps, including the Japanese Communist Party, which did not agree with the Constitution, established a joint strategy to prevent the U.S. from doing as it liked.

    In 1960, however, when the bilateral security treaty was revised, the Japanese governing class, dubbed "Nippon teikokushugisha" (or "Nittei," meaning "Japanese Imperialists"), tried to join hands with their U.S. counterparts via the treaty, causing then Prime Minister Shinsuke Kishi to railroad the bill through the Diet in outrageous fashion, revising the treaty despite strong opposition from the public.

    Until the 1950s the Constitution had functioned as a tool to turn down a spate of U.S. requests. But after 1960, it became an excuse for the Japanese government to acquiesce to U.S. wishes. Subsequent "protect-the-Constitution" movements have also played into government hands, allowing it to do as the U.S. administration says.

    Most Japanese people have forgotten this history.

    Let's take one ironic situation as a typical example. Japan provides logistic support to U.S. Navy ships based at Yokosuka. Two months after (the) Sept. 11 (attacks), Japan dispatched AEGIS-equipped destroyers to the Indian Ocean as part of collective defense operations.

    Japanese ships were supplying fuel and materials to U.S. naval vessels that had been involved in the fighting with Iraq. This apparently violated the Constitution, which prohibits Japan from exercising the right of "collective defense."

    The Japanese government gave an odd explanation, which I took to be a joke, concerning whether or not Japan's logistic support for U.S. ships based at Yokosuka violated the Constitution's ban on the right to "collective defense."

    "The government is not notified of the destinations of the Yokosuka-based U.S. warships when they leave port," the government said.

    So what about providing fuel and supplies to ships equipped with Tomahawk missiles? In Diet discussion, the defense chief said, "The missiles are remote-controlled. There is a possibility that they may be knocked off course after they are launched. There's no guarantee that they reach their targets."

    If these arguments are correct, then the war-renouncing Constitution in effect allows Japanese troops to do anything, including participation in "collective defense operations." So if we want to speak for ourselves, we have to revise the Constitution, in particular the war-renouncing Article 9.

    For a start, we have to define what the right of "collective self-defense" is. If you set preconditions for exercising this right, you can clearly refuse any kind of unreasonable U.S. request by saying, "Exercising that right anticipates 'multilateral agreements' or an accord at the U.N. General Assembly or Security Council for such operations. We cannot send our troops."

    Japan can say to the U.S.,"If you want us to dispatch troops, please make efforts to get an agreement under a multilateral framework."

    At least, we need due process before participating in "collective self-defense."

    Regrettably, it is not possible to keep the peace by adhering to Article 9, under which Japan is now sending troops everywhere and exercising the right of collective defense independently of the Constitution's provisions and in violation of its spirit.

    But probably the most telling piece of the article is another quote you left out from Professor Wolfram:

    There are many other bad things you can say about it (the U.N.). However, it's the only world forum that exists. There is no other place where every country in the world can present its ideas, complaints, wishes, suggestions and so on.

    Setting up an alternative organization for such a purpose would seem ridiculous, and because the world order as we have known it in the second half of the 20th century is now being destroyed by the Bush government, we will become more dependent on the U.N. to reconstruct a similar stable world order.

    Throughout the article (which dealt mainly with America's war with Iraq) both parties took as many opportunities to bash America as they could. Discussion about Article 9 was just one small part of the article.

  • 0

    combinibento

    you'll have to define offensive for me... somewhere in my multitude of degrees I missed that definition

    While it's nowhere written in this site's TOS, apparently one of the rules for using this site is that it is absolutely unaccetable and unappropriate to suggest (even in a two-sided, best-and-worst type hypothetical as you have done) that there might be anything remotely negative with Japanese society. We are to limit comments to the mundane, at all costs. Comments like "RIP" and "Pretty girl in that picture" or "It's wrong to hunt whales" are preferred.

  • 0

    Meguroman

    Always interesting to me that the majority of Japanese and also many foreigners think that Japan doesnt have military forces. Sorry this isnt Costa Rica - while under the moniker "Self-Defence Forces", the budget, the ships, planes, tanks and number of personnel and weapons are certainly capable of a lot of destruction, meaning that though currently postured for defence, by any reasonable measure, they are a large and capable military force. Do the SDF take the civil service exams? Do they walk around enforcing the traffic laws? No, they don`t work in city hall or in kobans. After 20 yrs here as a cilivian and 1 yr in the Marines in Okinawa I finally think we should phase out our presence here over 5 yrs or so and let the Japanese fill any gaps themselves. Certainly, we can have a treaty to assist and perhaps have a few small units here and there but enough is enough, Japan can and more importantly, should defend itself.

  • 0

    HokoOnchi

    Article 9 should be retained but what it means needs to be revised to suit the current state of the world. What does defending Japan mean when the country depends on global trade as heavily as it does to subsist?

    What does defense mean when countries as unpredictable and an unfriendly as the DPRK are moving full speed to become nuclear weapons wielders?

  • 0

    OGMGS4

    Why is it a crime to defend yourself against an aggressor? Article 9 has always been a humiliation to Japan in the first place.

    Japan would no doubt beat the PRC in a war so Japan can hold the key to successfully containing China in the region. Stability and the territorial integrity of Southeast Asian, and East Asian nations can be preserved if Japan decides to take the leadership role in the region, and builds her military to where it should be.

  • 0

    bannedacctsam

    Ridding of Article 9 will surely lead to the destabilization of the East Asian region due to objections from S Korea, China, and Taiwan.

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    Article nine should specify cleary that Japan obtains the right to defend her citizen and their asset from any and all foreign agression within and out side her borders and that Japan retains the right to retaliate as self defence purpose only and maintain a military for that sole purpose.

  • 0

    Alejandro Dela Cruz

    I support the removing of the article 9 in Japan's constitution, simply because a country always needs a military to protect its citizens from all dangers around the world. Fact is, if Japan isn't an island nation it would've been China's territory now just like Tibet. Unfortunately, Chinese has to use naval/Air forces to reach Japan first before they can start deploying troops to occupy the country.

    If China did not exist in the first place, all these war-freaking ideas popping everywhere in the world may have not been provoked to show up just yet. But oh well, it seems like China did not understand why they were attacked back then. If a war breaks out, it would be a total annihilation of the entire Chinese population in their mainland, not because of Japan or any country that is being provoked by China, but because the Chinese leaders are willing to give up every single person in their land for their own Greed. Like I said before, Greed knows no limits, respect for nature, for God, for country, for countrymen, China has nothing to give but it has something to lose - everything they want will lose if they back down now.

    Also, as a first world country, having no military and always depends on US is a real problem. Many things could happen, what happens if US is threatened by China and would just decide to leave Japan once a danger occurs? - lets hope not. As for those who kept whining about US forces being stationed in Japan, I think you all should look at the bigger picture of what is going on right now.

    As for that, I would love to see Japan's military might again. Not as an invader nation back in WWII, but a nation that protects its people, neighboring nations, and it's interests. With Pride and faith.

  • 0

    Bryan E Hall

    They will never ask you if you want to go to war, but they will ask you if you want a better self defense, and you will say yes, and they will the, go to war. Basic history.

  • -1

    black_jack

    I just don't understand those who think that there will be war when Japan change the constitution. Could you give a detailed explanation backing such prediction? The Article 9 does not allow the possesion of military force. As far as I know most of the countries in the world have military. Are all of these countries warmongers? If they are allowed to posses military, why not Japan? Is Japan threatning to attack or invade other countries? No!! It is China that is threatning Japan. Are you guys that naive to think that China won't do anything if Japan maintains the Article 9? The current govertnment is central-leftist. They are known for being weak against China. Did that fact improve the Sino-Japanese relation during the last three years? No!! China took advantage of that and they started intruding both the water and the airspace of Senkaku. That's why Japan should take a strong position when dealing with China. The Chinese are historically known for considering kindness as weaknes, and play rough with weak countries, while they compromise when dealing with strong countries. That's why I think Japan should play tough with China, and this Article 9 is a major weakness for Japan in terms of diplomacy with China. If you don't like this movement of changing the constitution, please take your complaints to China.

  • -1

    Kazuaki Shimazaki

    I voted yes.

    First, a few things need to be cleared up. You do not need to be an Army to be considered a lawful, privileged combatant. Besides, it is customary international law to treat the SDF as a military, so it will be very rich for China or Korea (note I do not necessarily exclude the risk of South Korea) to deny it at the last moment.

    If anything, the problem is generally inside Japanese national law and customary interpretation that for many years have been making short term concessions to pacifist parties to long term hurt. At this point, it is probably unfeasible to untangle that knot of interpretations and laws.

    Further, as I have said elsewhere, it would be a one-time pain that would aftewards deprive China of a major propaganda weapon.

    @tokyomusing The only way Japan can decide in the long terms what wars she wants to fight (including no wars at all) will depend on her having a self-sufficient military. Article 9 might have gotten Japan off for Korea and Vietnam but that was about all the freebies. After that, while Japan was never quite forced into war, the price she had to pay for insisting on peace rose drastically and she was forced to participate complete with troops in Iraq.

    And if you are going to be forced, you might as well be the 2nd largest force, which will at least give you some say over how the war is fought and hopefully gain you a chunk of the spoils. You would not get any say if you are only 600 guys that would not even fight.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    The conservatives/right wingers in Japan say that "We can't be proud of our country! We can't feel strong and powerful without having our own military! Which is why we must abolish Article 9!" - in a way, that is true.

    And then the doves/left in Japan say, "No way! If we abolish Article 9, then we will bring back the Japanese Empire! And then Japan will start a war, and everything will go wrong! It'll be the end of the world!" - that, is a bit of over-reactionary nonsense. In the 50s immediately after the war, that fear might have been justified, but today, that is a bit of nonsense. These people are a bit out of touch with reality and these people need to get on with the times. We don't live in the 1950s anymore.

    Look, why isn't the average person in Japan capable of debating and talking about what went wrong during the 1940s, when things DID go wrong for the Japanese military? If you talked to an average German, then surely he can talk about it and he is quite aware of what happened during the war and what went wrong and how to prevent that kind of Nazi atrocity from happening in the first place. Japan can not do this, because it has never even tried. Which is why the Japanese people keep having the same reactionary response again and again when people bring up Article 9 ("We'll bring back the old Japanese Empire!" etc), because they never actually dare deal with the root cause of the problem. Which is part of the reason why nobody was/is able to stop the reckless old man that is Ishihara.

  • -1

    SamuraiBlue

    Germany has military of their own and it does not make their neighbors nervous because Germany has actually dealt with their own history, while Japan has not. "Japan is peaceful blah blah"

    Not this BS again. When the cold war was still at it's height each side was at it's throats, remember?

    EU still reserves suspision against Russia. It's the same situation here as well. nothing had really changed. You just like to troll as if did.

  • -1

    YuriOtani

    Thomas is is a better thing for Japan to be neutral in the conflict of others. Not many places will accept armed Japanese troops. How about when America goes broke and Japan leases Pearl Harbor? No things are as they should be, Japan is not part of the problem.

  • -1

    Jaymann

    @ Thomas ... I do think that your points are excellent

  • -2

    JoeBigs

    Japan needs to scrap that outdated piece of their Constitution and take control of it's own future.

  • -2

    ratapapa

    It needs to be scrapped. There are too many threats in the region, and Japan can't just play defense all the time. Plus, the gung-ho American troops stationed here have it in their heads that they can do anything they want because Japan needs them. It's time for Japan to be more independent and proactive in terms of its national security.

  • -2

    volland

    Yes, it would be a great help, to get rid of it.

    Japan and the world have a huge economic crises, and so far the ONLY thing that really has helped against something of that kind, has been a World War.

    The only alternative for Japan would be to actually start facing its ridiculaous reality and honesty liove with that. Now who would want that?

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    I think that the left should ENCOURAGE scrapping the Article 9, because then they can tell the conservatives/right wingers that if Japan want to have their own military, then they must be RESPONSIBLE of their own military, which will actually FORCE them to deal with their own history. They can say that, "Look, if we want to have our own military, then we must become a responsible nation, which means no more revisionism and excuses for our past actions" and hold the high moral ground. That is a good thing, a win-win situation for both. That also means that the left must also become vigilant and responsible, which the left in Japan has been lacking.

    I think that it's ultimately about trust. Eventually, you will have to trust them, even the conservatives, that when they have their own military, then they will be responsible for it, that they will take care of it. They must assume an adult responsibility of running an independent sovereign state with actual military capabilities. All Article 9 does is infantilize them and excuse them of having to deal with the adult-like responsibility of running their own independent nation.

  • -2

    The_True

    Beer4meDEC. 17, 2012 - 07:23PM JST Japan helped China by sending technology to it homeland and what do they do? Steal it and say its there's Japan helped Korea and what do they do? The same! Lets stop giving away technology and start rebuilding for a better Japan!

    but, is that what japan have been doing since open up to the world, stealing other countries Technologies and customs and claim then they own?

  • -2

    Reckless

    They just need to amend it slightly like "we renounce war for about 60 or so years..."

  • -2

    volland

    @Thomas AndersonDec. 18, 2012 - 11:43AM JST

    You might take a look at sunday's election results.... "the left" won 2 seats.... I am not saying saying that anything you write here is wrong.... but I feel like asking you,why you enjoy talking to walls?

    @megosaaDec. 19, 2012 - 12:41PM JST

    Wei Keat TanDEC. 17, 2012 - 11:36AM JST 
    

    <No. In fact, all countries in the world should have Article 9 in their constitution.>

    Japan is full of comedians... You really mean that, don't you... You actually mean, that that would make any difference?

  • -2

    xuanzhang

    Absolutely. Just not yet.

    If Japan and Korea paid allegiance to China I'd support them both having nuclear weapons.

  • -3

    black_jack

    Of course!,when you have a country like China at your doorstep threatening you and trying to steel your land knowing that you cannot do much because of this Article 9. If Japan was surrounded by peaceful nations, this may not be necessary, but unfortunately the reality is different.

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    Thomas you complain about the right wingers in Japan and then say lets remove the limitations of Japan making war. Japan is at peace and we are not interested in getting involved in other peoples wars.

    Yuri I've already said that it has nothing to do with right wing since all independent sovereign states have military of their own.

    Look at what happen the last time Japan did this.

    Indeed, why did things go so wrong the last time? Japan is not investigating this, which it should. Will Japan go berserk the moment it has military? No, things could have been very different for Japan indeed. They could have been a peaceful democratic state from the start had the militarists did not hijack the Japanese constitution. Imagine that...

  • -3

    technosphere

    No. In fact, all countries in the world should have Article 9 in their constitution.

    Thanks. All countries have no desire to become American servants..........

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    There is no reason for Japan to process a offensive capability. We are a peaceful people and it would make other countries nervous.

    Oh please, not this BS again. Germany has military of their own and it does not make their neighbors nervous because Germany has actually dealt with their own history, while Japan has not. "Japan is peaceful blah blah" - I'm sure they are, but all they did was RUN AWAY from the problem, but they never dealt with it which is why Japan is eternally distrustful of their own country and uneasy with their own people/military. Studies show that Japanese people trust themselves much lower than the average.

  • -4

    cleo

    I agree with Wei Keat Tan. All civilised countries should have an Article 9. America (who imposed Art.9 in the first place) only wants it scrapped so that they can use all the hardware they've sold to Japan and have Japanese soldiers to send out as cannon-fodder in their own aggressive wars.

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    Its Article 9 which makes Japan unique among nations.

    True, no other major industrialized nation is as dependent on US as Japan. There is no relation in history quite like it.

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    Here's an interesting talk with Professor Miyadai and Prof. Wolferen, regarding Article 9 and keeping peace:

    What are your views on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and efforts to revise the Japanese Constitution?

    Miyadai: Regrettably, it is not possible to keep the peace by adhering to Article 9, under which Japan is now sending troops everywhere and exercising the right of collective defense independently of the Constitution's provisions and in violation of its spirit.

    Wolferen: There's a very simple solution. I think that Japan should have a Constitution that is taken seriously by Japanese officials, Japanese politicians and Japanese people themselves. It should not be a "sacred cow" or anything like that.

    It should be the chief law of the country, and it should be compiled by Japanese, not by foreigners like it was during the American Occupation, and it should then be followed; it should not be violated every day in the way the Constitution of Japan now is.

    (Concerning talk of revising Italy's Constitution), it's a matter of formulation. You can preserve the antiwar sentiments of the Constitution very simply by saying that the right that every state has to wage war -- it's a defining characteristic of a state -- will not be exercised by the Japanese people because of their wisdom gained through their experience, unless, of course, she is being attacked, or something like that.

    You can formulate it in such a way that you preserve the antiwar sentiment. Obviously, though, you must throw out the line about "armed forces will never be maintained," because Japan has the third or fourth most expensive forces in the world.

    Miyadai: But the point is not whether or not the Constitution should be revised but how to contribute to world peace. There are two groups demanding revision.

    One group is demanding respect for Hinomaru and "Kimigayo" as the national flag and anthem, revision of the basic education law and even the restoration of conscription, while the other seeks constitutional revision as an attempt to check autocratic U.S. requests by attaching more weight to the U.N.

    The U.N. does not always do what is right. But we have the opportunity to discuss whether we should dispatch our troops or not. The current situation does not permit Japan to lay bare its opinions, making us feel humiliated. All things, including peacekeeping operations, which I see as exercising the right to wage war, should be decided on within a multilateral framework.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20040101n4.html

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    YuriOtani

    Thomas is is a better thing for Japan to be neutral in the conflict of others. Not many places will accept armed Japanese troops. How about when America goes broke and Japan leases Pearl Harbor? No things are as they should be, Japan is not part of the problem.

    Well it's interesting Yuri, since even with Article 9 Japan already dispatches troops everywhere, and Japan supports the US military wherever it goes anyway because Japan violates and does not even respect its own constitution most of the time. So even with Article 9, it does not guarantee peace. The Japanese constitution needs some revisions. Prof. Wolferen suggests that Japanese people make their own version of the constitution so that both the Japanese officials and the public will respect it.

    Then Prof. Miyadai says that there are two types of groups that want to revise the constitution, basically the war-mongering right-wingers and the rest who want peace. Both Prof. Miyadai and Prof. Wolferen suggest to revise the constitution but leave the peaceful elements and make sure to adhere more to the UN instead of the US. If Japan adheres to the UN then at least Japan can have a say in whether they should dispatch the troops or not. With the US, they have no choice.

    This can not be done as long as Article 9 is in place because then Japan can not decline to the US whenever it requests military support from Japan. If Japan wishes to decline to the US then they need to have their own military, and tell the US to respect Japan as an independent sovereign state instead of a convenient vassal state of the US.

    Don't let the war-mongers and the militarists revise the constitution and hijack it like they did before. Revise the constitution BEFORE they attempt to do that. This may already be happening with LDP in power. Scary stuff.

  • -5

    Thomas Anderson

    Article 9

    (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.

    Yes, Article 9 is a bit of an international joke. It says that Japan is not allowed to have military, yet it already practically has military. A nation can not be an independent sovereign nation without any military force. Abandoning Article 9 is something both the right and the left SHOULD agree on.

  • -5

    Thomas Anderson

    Most Japanese people are uneasy with the idea of having their own military, because they have not yet properly dealt with the horrors of their own military during the last war. But they should know how to STOP that kind of horror and atrocity from happening in the first place! THEN the Japanese people can finally be confident in having military that will NOT go berserk.

    Japanese people want Article 9 for no other reason than that they do not know how to stop the militarists from going berserk.

  • -6

    Beer4me

    I vote for an Imperial Japan!

  • -7

    Thomas Anderson

    No. In fact, all countries in the world should have Article 9 in their constitution.

    That's unrealistic... it will never happen. Article 9 was a mistake made the General McArthur and it was done in order to control Japan more easily.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Poll

View all

View all