{"id":25783,"date":"2016-04-07T10:00:45","date_gmt":"2016-04-07T00:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=25783"},"modified":"2016-04-07T08:33:13","modified_gmt":"2016-04-06T22:33:13","slug":"the-surrender-of-japans-peace-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/the-surrender-of-japans-peace-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"The surrender of Japan\u2019s peace constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"
In February, Japanese Prime Minister<\/span> Shinzo Abe<\/span><\/a> called on the National Diet to amend Article 9 of the country\u2019s constitution, which renounces war as a means of settling disputes. Drafted by the United States after World War II, the constitution contains ‘some parts [that] do not fit into the current period,’ Abe<\/span> said<\/span>. He is particularly concerned with the constitutional provision that prohibits Japan from maintaining ‘land, sea, and air forces,’ arguing that it seems to be in direct contradiction with the existence of the country\u2019s Self-Defense Forces.<\/span><\/p>\n At a glance, Abe\u2019s proposal seems deeply unpopular. According to one poll, some 50.3% of the Japanese public objects to amending Article 9. Only 37.5% of those polled favor such action. The good news for Abe, however, is that opposition to his efforts, though broad, does not seem to run deep. Voters, it seems, are less concerned about the direction Abe is taking the country than they are about his decision to make the issue a top priority.<\/span><\/p>\n Revising the constitution would provide stronger legal grounding for Abe\u2019s controversial defense measures. Introduced last year, the new legislative provisions lift restrictions on deploying Japanese forces overseas and expand the definition of self-defense to include aiding an ally. These, too, are unpopular \u2013 at least superficially. Some 51% of Japanese voters disapprove of the measures, compared to 30% who support them. And yet only 38%<\/span> say<\/span><\/a> they would like to see Abe reverse course and repeal the legislation.<\/span><\/p>\n To be sure, many in Japan are concerned about the implications of Abe\u2019s agenda, feeling that it runs counter to the country\u2019s national security and proper international stance. They worry that Abe\u2019s defense moves will make it more likely that Japan will be dragged into war, putting an end to its post-war pacifism.<\/span><\/p>\n Another avenue of criticism regards worries that Japan\u2019s new defense doctrine will worsen its relationships with its neighbors. Several countries have indeed already expressed concerns. China\u2019s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hong Lei,<\/span> stated<\/span> that Japan\u2019s new approach was ‘out of step with the trend of the times featuring peace, development, and cooperation.’ His counterpart at South Korea\u2019s foreign ministry<\/span> commented<\/span><\/a> that his country would ‘never tolerate’ Japan\u2019s exercise of the right to collective self-defense on the Korean peninsula ‘without the [Republic of Korea\u2019s] request or consent.’ And North Korean state media<\/span> reported<\/span><\/a> that Abe\u2019s reforms were intended to ‘pave the way for invading other countries.’<\/span><\/p>\n Not all of the opposition to Abe\u2019s agenda, however, stems from substantive objections. In some cases, concern focuses on the legitimacy of the process that produced the laws. According to one poll, 67% of respondents disapprove of how the ruling coalition pushed the legislation through the Diet. There is a widespread feeling in Japan that Abe\u2019s cabinet ‘did not make a sufficient effort’ to explain the legislation to the public. By ignoring criticism from the majority of voters, Abe\u2019s government allegedly discredited Japan\u2019s democratic system.<\/span><\/p>\n Similarly, some 51% of respondents disapproved of the laws on constitutional grounds, believing them to be in violation of Article 9 of the constitution, the provision that Abe would like to alter. These voters are less likely to support scrapping the bills; indeed, some of them may be mollified if Abe is successful in amending the constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n There is also a simple, practical answer that explains why opponents of the laws may not be in favor of efforts to repeal them. Many in Japan would like to avoid a divisive debate that could distract the government\u2019s attention from other priorities.<\/span> In February, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called on the National Diet to amend Article 9 of the country\u2019s constitution, which renounces war as a means of settling disputes. Drafted by the United States after …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":495,"featured_media":25784,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1276,376,192,507],"class_list":["post-25783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-japan-self-defense-forces","tag-politics","tag-public-opinion","tag-shinzo-abe"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\nJapan\u2019s economy<\/span> shrunk<\/span><\/a> more than expected in the final quarter of 2015, and its stock market has been in turmoil since the beginning of this year. No matter how unenthusiastic the Japanese might be about Abe\u2019s security bills and his attempts to change the constitution, they would prefer that the issue be relegated to a back burner. That way, the government can focus on what voters really care about: turning the economy around and saving the country\u2019s social security programs.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"