Roadmap to Collective Self-defense

One characteristic of Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is that he easily gets mad at consecutive intimidations against him. Whenever he receives irregular voices from audience during his discussion in the Diet, he interrupts his words accusing assertions against him. It reveals his short temper. What if it were not intimidations from his fellow legislators, but from neighbor countries? Is Abe an appropriate leader to deal with pressures from outside?

In his discussion in Budget Committee of the House of Councillors on Thursday, Abe stressed the necessity of reinterpretation of Article IX of the Constitution of Japan to make exercise of collective self-defense possible. Citing possibility of a case in which a Japanese vessel needs to retaliate to an enemy that attacked a U.S. vessel alongside, whether or not that elaboration might be realistic. “Japan-U.S. alliance will reach an end, if Japan does nothing in such a case,” according to Abe. He seems to be willing to respond China’s assertive with military power, putting aside his responsibility of removing current diplomatic stalemates.

He expects three-step process for the reinterpretation. Firstly, the Cabinet approves the right of collective self-defense in his idea. He believes that to be possible after his consultative committee will report the legitimacy of the reinterpretation this April.

The Second is to legislate necessary laws. It has been assumed that Japan cannot retaliate in a situation of being directly attacked under current laws. To make dealing with an attack on others possible, Abe thinks that Armed Attack Situation Response Law must be attacked. When Japan exercises collective self-defense right with U.S. in contingency around Japan, it may also need to review the Law on Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan to clarify Japanese mission in addition to current roles in procurement, transportation and medical treatment.

The last step is independent decision on actual incidents. It will be focusing on whether or not setting a limit in the activities of self-defense force. Whether the government send self-defense force only to the area surrounding Japan or to anywhere in the world. If the government is sending troops everywhere, the argument may need to amend the constitution.

Those steps are considered in the administration, because the fundamental reform for possible security measures needs constitutional amendment, which will require certain length of time. The opposite parties argue that such a major change in constitutional interpretation should be done as an amendment. However, the reinterpretation will be regarded as another step away from traditional Japanese pacifism by neighbor countries, namely China and South Korea. For the United Sates, this movement of the administration is worth close watch.