Far-fetched Interpretation of Court Decision

The administration led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seems to have determined to make a breakthrough in reinterpretation of Article IX of the Constitution of Japan to make exercising collective self-defense right possible by stretched interpretation of old decision of the Supreme Court, which admitted right of self-defense. Lawmakers of Liberal Democratic Party think that is the only way to carry on with their own lives. But their reasoning fundamentally makes no sense.

Receiving request of quick authorization, LDP embarked on discussion about reinterpretation of the Constitution. Vice-President of LDP, Masahiko Komura, insisted in the first meeting that collective self-defense right had been confirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1959. “That was the one and only decision the Supreme Court referred to self-defense right,” told Komura. He meant that the decision generally admitted minimum exercise of self-defense right, a phrase in the Constitution, and the right included collective self-defense right.

The decision, commonly called Sunagawa Decision, was made on a case in which protesters were arrested with charge of trespassing property of United States Force in western Tokyo. Overturning the first decision of Tokyo Regional Court that found defendants were not guilty, because allowing U.S. bases in Japan was against the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided that U.S. bases were not unconstitutional, because the Constitution did not deny the right of self-defense inherited to every sovereign country.

Delighted was LDP lawmakers who were skeptical about Abe’s unilateral leadership on some policies without guts of maintaining political debate against their leaders. “I could understand Komura’s explanation,” or “Leaving a few talking point, though, his argument was acceptable,” were responses of most LDP lawmakers.

They all ignored a fundamental fact that the Government of Japan had reiterated the interpretation that Japan could not exercise collective self-defense right even after the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has not made any judicial review on it. Komura’s reasoning completely ignored that history. This was not a reinterpretation for security, but for reinterpretation.

United States are welcoming this far-fetched discussion to renew bilateral guideline for security cooperation this fall. It may leave a great regret on bilateral alliance, if both government allow such a distorted reasoning of the Constitution. Urging hasted reinterpretation can turn entire Japan into anti-American Okinawa. If U.S. needs a help of Japan for security in Northeast Asia, Japan can do it under current interpretation, as New Komeito argues.