Full-spec Exercise or Not

Supposedly because of the lack of definite opinion of his own, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has still not elaborated the necessity of changing Article 9 of Constitution of Japan in the discussion in current Diet session. To a question of a lawmaker with the opposite party, Abe explained that exercise of collective self-defense right in “full-spec” would not be allowed, even if he add new provision to the Article for making Japanese Self-defense Force legitimate. His appeal for changing Article 9 gets more and more making no sense.

Liberal Democratic Party upholds a draft of constitutional amendment that argues dropping Paragraph 2 of Article 9, which prohibited maintenance of force for waging war as a sovereign right of the nation. Employing an idea of an expert with right-wing organization called Japan Conference, Abe made another proposal last year in which the paragraph would be maintained and new paragraph of describing legitimacy of self-defense force would be added. It was mainly to keep his coalition partner Komeito in his administration.

The opposite parties criticized Abe’s proposal as killing Paragraph 2 and paving the way for SDF to unlimited use of force in foreign countries. If SDF is written in the constitution and Ministry of Defense remains as an entity based on an act for its establishment, there will be an argument that civilian control will be lost under superiority of SDF. To deny those negative aspects of his idea, Abe tried to persuade them with a reasoning that nothing would be changed with adding new paragraph.

Kazuhiro Haraguchi asked Abe whether his opinion for adding new paragraph would allow SDF’s full-spec exercise of collective self-defense right. “In terms of necessary and minimum exercise of actual power, so-called full spec exercise cannot be allowed,” told Abe. He meant that exercise of collective self-defense right of SDF would be restricted by three conditions of use of force: obvious danger of threatening existence of Japan, no way except use of force and limited to necessary and minimum.

Abe argues that Article 9 has to be changed for SDF to be recognized as a legitimate organization with constitutionality. But, the government of Japan has been maintaining its stance that SDF is not unconstitutional as long as it is limited to necessary and minimum power. It makes no sense for Abe to say that Constitution has to be changed for maintaining status quo of SDF’s constitutionality. After all, constitutional amendment is just a legacy making for him.