Fifteen Examples

To justify its attempt to reinterpret the Constitution of Japan, the administration led by Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, presented a report of fifteen examples, in which they argued they needed to consider the reinterpretation. As Abe has always been so in pushing his personal agenda, those examples are extremely trivial. Making major policy change through minor reinterpretations is usual method of bureaucrats in Japan. The coalition of a trivia-loving leader and some authoritarians in bureaucracy is bringing instability in Asia by introducing unilateral security visions.

In his first administration between 2006 and 2007, Abe raised four examples for discussing reinterpretation of the Constitution. Fifteen examples this time should be an extended version of that. They included three examples of “gray zone,” in which situation was not escalated to offense with arms, four examples for peace keeping operation by the United Nations, and eight examples for exercising collective self-defense right.

Among the fifteen, there is an example of rescuing Japanese citizens from a terrorist attack in foreign country with agreement of it. This is simply an intervention to a conflict in foreign country, which post-war Japan has never been involved in. Rescuing citizen is a typical justification of invasion, as Russian occupation of Crimea recently showed, for instance. Agreement of host nation is also obsolete reason of aggression, as America or Soviet Union used in the time of the Cold War. There still are some people in Japanese government who want to use logic of great power, unfortunately.

Another ridiculous example is protecting American vessel around Japan when homeland of the United States are attacked. “U.S. homeland was attacked by a country close to Japan with ballistic missiles loading weapons of mass destruction. Although Japan has not been attacked, U.S. began to retaliate. The enemy country has been taking antagonistic attitude to Japan, and its attack on us is possible, if we do not stop their attacks. But we cannot do it,” is the story.

That is wrong. You can do it, because it is recognized as attack on Japan and there are laws to deal with such a case already. Abe administration just wants to make a case to exercise collective self-defense to break the Constitution down.

Amazingly, the report noted a necessity of dealing with submarines hanging on in deep sea within Japan’s territory. It is not what a country is explicitly discussing as security policy. To justify his personal agenda, Abe revealed Japan’s preparation for marine operation. The more positive the administration is in discussion of trivial contingency, the harder its neighbors prepare for it.