Avoiding Open Discussion

Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is accelerating his effort to reinterpret the Article IX of the Constitution of Japan, which renounces war as a way to settle international conflicts. He revealed his intention to skip discussion in the National Diet before the Cabinet decision would be made.

As long as the reinterpretation is paving a way to allow Japanese government using military power for protecting other countries, it is likely that the decision will be regarded as unconstitutional. However, Abe is put the priority on security needs rather than constitution. The dispute over the reinterpretation is getting into the same situation as the United States one and a half century ago, when humanitarian ideal and property rights sharply opposed each other. Anyway, is it appropriate for Japan to spend time for domestic confusion when the dynamism of power structure in Northeast Asia is drastically changing?

Abe has been dodging questions about the reinterpretation, saying that “It is discussed in an advisory conference on security legislature.” Frustrated with this apathetic attitude toward the legislative branch, former leader of Democratic Party of Japan, Katsuya Okada, strongly criticized Abe of his arbitrariness in making great change of national security policy. Against the request of Okada to discuss the reinterpretation before the Cabinet will decide it, Abe answered that the discussion would be done when the related legislature will be submitted to the Diet after the Cabinet decision.

In terms of the constitutionality of the reinterpretation, Abe has no clear answer. He has only been emphasizing security needs of Japan. “What if a missile is launched from North Korea?” “What if a U.S. vessel close to a Japan vessel is attacked?” While intimidating the public with a lot of “what ifs,” Abe has never told whether the reinterpretation is constitutional or not. Avoiding open discussion about constitution, Abe is trying to get through this issue only with security discussion. It is fair to say that this attitude of the prime minister is unconstitutional.

The United States has a bitter experience that a sharp dispute over interpretation of the constitution on slavery escalated to an all-out civil war. After the war, the constitution was amended to reject slavery, costing over six hundred thousand lives. Although it is unlikely for the Japanese to have all-out civil war now, this fundamental change of one of the important pillar of the constitution will lead to a long and consistent dispute in Japan. It is wiser to deal with actual security needs by keeping traditional interpretation of the constitution, which allows the government of Japan to exercise individual self-defense right in broader sense.