It is not an easy task to compare the values established by the so-called European Constitution, and the values expressed in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. For a comparison we need to have at least a particular viewpoint and a proper measure to, which I do not have at this time. In addition to this, making a comparison useful also requires a shared purpose, which I have not found so far. This situation keeps me from making any comment on Mr. Claudio Mandrino’s remark: “While Japan decided to modify the ‘No-War Clauses’ as set in its Constitution, at the same time in another region of the world, a supranational text which imposes itself over the laws of 25 member States envisages Peace as one of the fundamental values linking them together¹”.
But as far as I understand, the word peace is not mentioned in Article I-2 (The Union’s Values), but it is included in Article I-3 (The Union’s Objectives): “The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples”. In this text we see that peace is defined as one of “objectives,” and that it is
differentiated from “its values and the wellbeing of its peoples²”. And this leads me to focus on the real context of revision for Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan.
Article 9 comprises two paragraphs. The first establishes that Japan “forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes”, while the second prohibits the maintenance of “land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential”, and states that “the right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized”. Also, the second paragraph of the Preamble includes the sentence: “We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want”.
Japan’s ruling party (Liberal Democratic Party) released a draft of the proposed amended constitution in November 2005, and the proposed changes include:
- New wording for the Preamble, deleting the right to live in peace clause,
- While the first paragraph of Article 9 is retained, the second paragraph is replaced by an Article
9-2 which permits a “defense force”, under control of the Prime Minister, which defends the nation and may participate in international activities. This new section uses the Japanese term gun (“army” or “military”), which has been avoided in the current constitution. “In addition to activities needed for self-defense… the defense forces can take part in efforts to maintain international peace and security under international cooperation, as well as to keep fundamental public order in our country”, the draft says.
This constitutional draft explicitly authorises Japanese participation in foreign peacekeeping efforts, and broadens the government’s ability to send forces overseas.
This revision also opens the door to a broader interpretation of the constitution, permitting what some call “the use of the right of collective self-defense”, or coming to the military aid of other countries. The most likely beneficiary is Japan’s closest ally, the United States, which has urged Japan to adopt such measures. And it is worth recognising that the official New China News Agency described Japan’s revision as a document “designed to provide legal support for its ambition of playing a greater political role on the global stage and of boosting the defense force’s status³”.
So, we should understand the serious implications of the following text in the context of Japan’s constitutional revision. The Security Consultative Committee Document, issued May 1, 2006, starts by saying: “The U.S.-Japan Alliance, with the U.S.-Japan security arrangements at its core, is the indispensable foundation of Japan’s security and of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. A close, cooperative relationship based on the alliance also plays an important role in effectively
dealing with global challenges, and must evolve to reflect the changing security environment⁴”. In particular it wants the Japanese Government to legalize “the use of the right of collective selfdefense” both regionally and globally.
As Rust Deming says, the Japanese government’s third National Defense Program Outline (NDPO) of late 2004 and its recommendations will affect the ongoing constitutional debate. The focus is on the need to legitimize the existing Self-Defense Forces fully and the right of self-defense; on the issue of collective self-defense; and on the future direction of defense policy⁵. Assuming that it is so, we the Japanese people are in the midst of dismantling Article 9. Still, there remain significant obstacles making it hard to confidently predict change⁶.
However, Rust Deming’s state policy-oriented opinion on Article 9 and on Japan’s defense policy is a subject of controversy. I would argue against his opinion that both the new NDPO and the later emergence of a revised constitution would provide the framework for strengthening the Japan-US alliance, and that bilateral cooperation is likely to increase with respect to the ballistic missile defense, support for contingencies on the Korean Peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait, and to sea lane protection⁷. One passage will be cited here to orient my approach for exploring Deming’s opinion. Richard Tanter’s remark on the subject seems to be based on the essence of the matter, saying that “the acceleration of the process of Heisei militarization by the Bush Doctrine has diminished rather than increased Japanese security. Japan has become technologically implicated in any American conflict with China through missile defense – the Taiwan Straits and Korea leap to mind⁸” .
As Tanter says, the missile defense decision poses serious long-term strategic consequences. It includes the almost open-ended budget demands implicit in the decisions, the legality of exporting missile defense technology beyond the US, and the question of control over launching. However the most important consequences derive from the political implications of the technologies involved⁹.
To me it is more important to consider a political and moral viewpoint than one which is statepolicy-
oriented. Such a constitutional revision as the Americans, including Richard Armitage, and Japan’s Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi have been talking about would create “a political and moral disaster¹⁰”. The LDP’s draft seems to neglect an important role played by paragraph 2 of Article 9, especially because the article bans military operations abroad, which contributes to Japan’s pacifist image in the international community. It appears questionable whether the LDP government has tried to exhaust every means conducive to the Constitution’s pacifist principle in its past attempts to address international problems. The principle should be maintained as a universal ideal toward which the nation must strive.
According to Masaru Tamamoto, “The Japanese, inspired by the European Union’s example, have an opportunity to build on that restraint and extend its principles to other Asian nations. Europe – like Japan, under an American strategic umbrella – has begun moving toward a defense force shared by nations that, not so long ago, fought terrible wars against each other. Japan might lead Asia in doing the same¹¹”. He also says that it would be important to see that Japanese Constitutional pacifism was part of a broader 20th-century project to create “a universal approach to peace¹²”, in the sense that it stands in the tradition of the League of Nations, the pacifist Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, and the United Nations. I would say here that, while it is safe to say so as to paragraph 1 of Article 9, some important controversies on this
topic remain concerning the original thoughts on the outlawing of war, and that paragraph 2 of Article 9 recognized them.
Paragraph 2 of Article 9 is also a thoughtful product of attempts to outlaw the war system in the age of nuclear weapons. And the world of the nuclear space age would be a better place if Japan were to make a firm commitment to spreading its constitutional pacifism. It is exactly in this context that we have the great significance of both keeping paragraph 2 of Article 9 and the right to live in peace, as well as resisting the dismantling of Article 9 and the Preamble.
The new draft constitution is sparking debate, including opposition from non-governmental organizations of other countries. Grassroots Japanese organizations, the Article 9 Association, Save Article 9, and others were formed in 2004 and 2005 to oppose changes to Article 9.
Finally allow me this quote: “If one takes a long view of where we are already heading, and merely projects that a decade or so (or even less time) into the future, one can envision a gradually accreting global constitution, piece by piece, brick by brick, international agreement by international agreement¹³”.
This reminds me of a global constitution draft which has only a clause establishing the Global Police to fight against the growing threat to the security of all peoples, and to fight against global crimes, while it has no clause permitting the Global Government to hold an army¹⁴. In addition to these two articles, there is a comment on forming global symbiotical relationships: “The WTO is about a trade partnership between nations. Of course it is a bad idea to be a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). There are no advantages! It just does not work for anyone except when you have an army to knock down any member who does not do your five wishes and plus. A membership in the WTO is not needed and nations should instead seek relationships with fewer other nations only if needed¹⁵”. Even though presupposing that each country will keep its own army for defensive security, the point is that this draft constitution denies the function of existing armies in the context of trade partnerships between nations.
I wonder if the majority of world federalists in Japan would support the present formulation of paragraph 2 of Article 9, which would be one of the core articles of a global constitution.
¹ Cf. Claudio Mandrino, “Italy and Germany between Peace and Adhesion to the European Union. A comparison with Japan”, in this issue of The Federalist Debate.
² Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, in Official Journal of the European Union, C 310, Volume 47, 16.12.2004, www.unizar.es.
³ See, Anthony Faiola, “Japan’s Draft Charter Redefines Military”, Washington Post Foreign Service, Wednesday, November 23, 2005, A16.
⁴ U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future, May 1, 2006, by Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Minister of Foreign Affairs Aso, and Minister of State for Defense Nukaga, www.mofa.go.jp.
⁵ Rust Deming, “Japan’s Constitution and Defense Policy: Entering a New Era?” in Strategic Forum, No. 213, November 2004, Institute for National Strategic Studies. National Defense University, www.ndu.edu.
⁶ Richard J. Samuels, “Constitutional Revision in Japan: The Future of Article 9,” Wednesday, December 15, 2004, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, www.brookings.edu.
⁷ See note 5.
⁸ Richard Tanter, “Japanese Militarization and the Bush Doctrine,” February 13, 2005. www.nautilus.org. This essay was adapted from a piece that will be published in Peter Van Ness and Mel Gurtov (eds.), Confronting the Bush Doctrine: Critical Views from the Asia-Pacific, London, Routledge.
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Masaru Tamamoto, “Tokyo’s Peace and the American Agenda” in New York Times, July 1, 2001, reported in taiwansecurity.org.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Ibid.
¹³ Cf. James T. Ranney, “How World Federalism will likely come into Existence”, in this issue of The Federalist Debate.
¹⁴ The Global Constitution, www.telusplanet.net.
¹⁵ Chapter 14.2 B.5 Agency of Global Police, Article 1: The Global Police; Chapter 7, and Article 5: Any symbiotical relationship is for the good of all, and all life on Earth,. www.telusplanet.net.