A9 & Collective Self-defense

[CKohalyk]

NOTE: I posted this yesterday and e-Budo crashed before I could see the replies. I will re-post it and hope all that replied yesterday reply again. Thanks, Chad.

Read this recent article in the Daily Yomiuri (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20030107wo42.htm)

In recent years one of the most contested topics in the Diet, as well as in public circles, has been Article 9. What is your opinion? Should the govt rethink their interpretation of A9? Or leave it alone? Or toss it entirely? (Or even become MORE strict?)

What do you think?

[CKohalyk]

For those of you unsure of what A9 is read on:

The Article 9 "No War" Clause

Another distinctive feature of the constitution, and one that has generated as much controversy as the status of the emperor, is the Article 9 "No War" clause. It contains two paragraphs: the first states that the Japanese people "forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes"; the second states that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential will never be maintained." Some historians attribute the inclusion of Article 9 to Charles Kades, one of MacArthur's closest associates, who was impressed by the spirit of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war (see Diplomacy , ch. 1). MacArthur himself claimed that the idea had been suggested to him by Prime Minister Shidehara. The article's acceptance by the Japanese government may in part be explained by the desire to protect the imperial throne. Some Allied leaders saw the emperor as the primary factor in Japan's warlike behavior. His assent to the "No War" clause weakened their arguments in favor of abolishing the throne or trying the emperor as a war criminal.

Article 9 has had broad implications for foreign policy, the institution of judicial review as exercised by the Supreme Court, the status of the Self-Defense Forces, and the nature and tactics of opposition politics (see Major Foreign Policy Goals and Strategies , ch. 7; The Self-Defense Forces , ch. 8). During the late 1980s, increases in government appropriations for the Self-Defense Forces averaged more than 5 percent per year. By 1990 Japan was ranked third, behind the then-Soviet Union and the United States, in total defense expenditures, and the United States urged Japan to assume a larger share of the burden of defense of the western Pacific. Given these circumstances, some have viewed Article 9 as increasingly irrelevant. It has remained, however, an important brake on the growth of Japan's military capabilities. Despite the fading of bitter wartime memories, the general public, according to opinion polls, continued to show strong support for this constitutional provision.
---------

This was written in 94, but is a good quick overview.

CK

[Exorcist_Fist]

With the Japanese economy tanking, they will need to invade something pretty darn soon. I am laying cash on indonesia, since if a terrorist attack takes place in Japan, like say, Roppongi, then the planner will undoubtedly come from Indonesia.

That way, Japan will be able to start invading other Asian nations again, this time with full support of the west.

It will also allow them to take care of their own employment problems, at least temporarily, though I don't know how scary a battalion of charging former senior managers from IBM will be.

[CKohalyk]

Why Indonesia? Could be from an Aum splinter. They rank #5 on the US FTO List (true, the list is in alphabetical order...)

This gives me an idea for a new thread...

Anyways, Japanese people are freaked out that if A9 is dumped Japan's "true(?)" side will come out and they will start attacking other nations. MOFA is (economically) targeting SE Asian countries in competition with China, somehow I doubt they would want to extend trade ties militarily.