Considering Necessary and Minimum

Headquarters for Promoting Constitutional Amendment in Liberal Democratic Party started considering definition of Self-defense Force as “necessary and minimum capable organization” in Article 9 of Constitution of Japan. Mainichi Shimbun revealed it as a breaking news on Saturday. It is an attempt to ensure that Self-defense Force cannot be “force,” which the constitution prohibit Japan to possess. However, in the interpretation of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that it is unconstitutional, Self-defense Force cannot clear the problem of contradiction with Article 9 as long as it possesses actual power to wage war.

Prime Minister Abe proposed on May 3^rd, Constitution Day, writing existence of SDF down in the provision of Constitution of Japan without changing Paragraph 1 that renounced war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes, or Paragraph 2 that denied maintenance of land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential. He explained in October that his idea would not be removing restriction of Paragraph 2, which had been interpreted by Japanese government as allowing possession of necessary and minimum capability.

This is a technical discussion for changing Article 9 without changing those two paragraphs. It is a requirement of Komeito, the coalition partner of LDP administration. To define SDF in the constitution, it is inevitable to distinguish SDF from “force” in the constitution. “It is the most difficult to write down what the necessary and minimum for” told an officer of the government. Meaning of the necessary and minimum can be changed depending on the purpose or mission of SDF. Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and Japan Communist Party oppose defining SDF in the constitution as putting Paragraph 2 to death.

It is not easy to write down the purpose or mission of SDF in the provision, anyway. Leaders of the LDP headquarters consider a description of “to defend our nation” or “to maintain peace and security and complete the existence of the nation” to determine the status of SDF. This argument stems from a personal frustration of Abe with some scholars who consistently assert that SDF is unconstitutional.

It has still not concluded whether the name of Self-defense Force should be written in the provision. There is a fundamental discussion in LDP that the constitution has to be changed to determine possession of force, dismissing the requirement of Komeito. Changing SDF into ordinary force will generate broad criticism on renouncement of pacifism, one of the fundamental principles of Constitution of Japan.