New Reinterpretation Decided

On the sixtieth anniversary day of establishment of Japanese Self-defense Force, Shinzo Abe Cabinet decided new interpretation of the Constitution of Japan, which added new role to the force. While the government of Japan had been strictly prohibited use of force without enemy’s attack on its own territory, new interpretation unleashed using force in overseas in order to protect fundamental rights of Japanese citizens. Since that was a distortion of legal interpretation, Japan would be suspected to be stepping down as a developed nation with rule of law.

The decision relied its reasoning for reinterpretation on change of international security situation. “Security environment surrounding our nation has been and will be fundamentally changing, and we are facing complicated and significant security problem,” read the decision. It raised change of global power balance, rapid innovation of technology, development of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missiles, and threat of international terrorism as examples of problems in post-Cold War era. “Any one country,” the decision said, “ can no longer maintain its peace by itself, and international society expects us to play a role in appropriate manners.”

Regardless correctness of the recognition, the administration made an incredible reinterpretation. “While Article IX looks to be entirely prohibits use of force in international relationship, we cannot understand that the article prohibits necessary measures for self-defense to maintain our peace and security and fulfill our existence,” told the decision.

Overturning traditional interpretation that the article does not allow exercise of collective self-defense rights, the administration made a new interpretation that “We came to a conclusion that it is constitutionally tolerable to exercise minimal use of force against an offense on a country with close relationship when the attack threatens our existence and undermines and there is an obvious danger of undermining life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of our nation.” In short, Japan will retaliate, if American forces are attacked around Japan.

If Abe wants to protect American forces around Japan, he can do that within traditional interpretation by regarding it as attack on Japan. All he wanted was words of “exercising collective self-defense right” for his own legacy. He contradictorily planted instability in Asia-Pacific region by declaring retaliation against attacks on U.S. force. This is what his “positive pacifism” is all about.