Japan in PKO, PKF, and Article 9

Marie SAKAIClara GILLISPIEYONEMOCHI EmikoYAMAGUCHI

MegumiTORAIWA Saki

Text of Article 91) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace

based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

What are the questions being asked?

Should Article 9 be changed? How do Japanese citizens feel about Article 9?

How does the international community feel about changing it?

What is the impact of changing Article 9? How strictly is Article 9 Enforced?

Are PKO operations in violation of Article 9? What can we expect to see in the short term?

In the long term?

History of Article 9 Demilitarization means :

Japan’s militaristic leaders must be removed from power

Its ability to make war is dismantled Its military must be disarmed all military industry must be prohibited

The Article 9 has been drafted and revised, but all versions contain 2 paragraphs: Renouncing the right to war Armed forces would not be maintained

The Final Draft Aspiring sincerely to an international peace

based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Problems With Interpretation

1st paragraph- denied the aggressive acts of the war, but it did not deny acts of war in self-defense.

At the same time, the 2nd Paragraph, by effectively prohibiting Japan from armed forces and the right of belligerency, ultimately would make it impossible to carry out a war of self-defense.

Origins and History of the SDF

"National Police Reserve’s purpose is solely on peace keeping"

"It’s about how to maintain peace in Japan therefore it is not an army"

- Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru in 1950,

on the National Police Reserve, a

forerunner to the Japanese Self-Defense

Force

History of SDF 1950 - Korean War Instructions from MacArthur,

to augment 8,000 personnel in Japan Coast Guard and to establish National Police Reserve

National Police Reserve ( 警察予備隊 ) established one month after MacArthur's instructions

1954 - Self Defense Force ( 自衛隊 ) established by The Self-Defense Forces Law

Self-Defense Force Justified as a defensive means

that it permissable under certain interpretations of the Constitution

Deliberate use of non-military terms

All personnel are technically civilians

BUT One of the top five largest

military budgets in the world Highly sophisticated navy

Changes in SDF - Gulf War 1990 - Gulf War

Iraq invades Kuwait President Bush Sr.

asks for Japan's full cooperations

debate over whether to send SDF abroad

unable to reach consensus, bill to dispatch SDF overseas discarded

Changes in SDF - PKOs 1992 - Law Concerning

Cooperation for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (Peace Keeping Operations Law) approved

Permitted SDF to take part in United Nations PKO and PKF

Participated in at least 8 peacekeeping operations

Changes in SDF - War on Terror

2001, 9/11 - United States attacked by a terrorist group

10/29- Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law Can overseas actions

be in self-defense? What is the line

between defensive and offensive?

Pro-Revision of Article 9 Different groups with

different views of the world xenophobic -->

internationalist Vary on whether to revise

or remove Article 9 Identifying characteristics:

neo-nationalist internationalists collective-securitists fear/mistrust of Asian

neighbors Key groups: LDP, DPJ,

Komeito

Pro Arguments - The Constitution Should Be Revised ...

So that Japan can become a 'full state' / recognize the SDF as the official military (Nationalists)

So that Japan can fully participate in humanitarian/peacekeeping/anti-terrorism efforts (Internationalists/Collective Securitists)

So that Japan can strengthen its request for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (Nationalists/Internationalists)

Pro Arguments - The Constitution Should Be Revised ...

Because Japan is in 'a rough neighborhood' (almost all)

Because Japan cannot always depend on the United States/others for its support (Nationalists)

Because it is no longer relevant (Nationalists)

Anti-Revision of Article 9 Tend to have an outlook on

the world that is more homogenous than the Pro-Revision camp

Against revising Article 9 and may feel that Article 9 is already being diluted

Identifying characteristics: pacifists traditionalists idealists some internationalists

Key groups: Social Democratic Party, Japan Communist Party

Con Arguments - Article 9 should be preserved ...

So that current conditions can be maintained (traditionalists)

Because violence is not the answer (pacifists)

Because it plays an important role in encouraging world peace (idealists)

Con Arguments - Article 9 should be preserved ...

Because it allows Japan the right to self-defense without permitting the offensive use of force (traditionalists)

Because Article 9 already allows SDF to engage in peacekeeping operations (internationalists)

Japanese Public Opinion

"If you ask Japanese people today if they support 'remilitarization,' most would say no. But if you ask the question if they support a broader role of Japanese self-defense forces in the global community, then I believe a higher number would react positively."

- Yuki Nakano, Center for Strategic & International Studies

Statistics & Graphs

Do you think it is necessary to revise the Constitution?

Yes, I think so 42%

No, I don’t think so 19%

Neither 32%

No reply 7%Do you think it is necessary to revise Article 9?

Yes, I think so 24%

No, I don’t think so 39%

Neither 28%

No reply 9%

Opinion poll conducted by Asahi Shinbun three months after the outbreak of the Korean War in June, 1950:

54% endorsed the creation of an army 28% opposed the creation of an army

= result related to shock from the Korean War? Still, far removed from principles of

Article 9.

Asahi Shinbun opinion poll conducted immediately following the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (Sept, 1951):

71% favored the formation of an army

  = At this time, the view that "when Japan becomes

independent, it will only be proper for it to possess an army“ was circulating 

Hatoyama Ichiro cabinet was formed in 1955, which set forth its platform for "constitutional revision" and "independent constitution-making."

BUT: 

42% opposed revision of Article 9 37% in favor of revision

Under Sato Eisaku cabinet in Autumn, 1968:64% opposed to constitutional revision to permit

an army

19% favored of constitutional revision to permit an army

Under Ikeda Hayato cabinet in Aug, 1962:61% opposed to constitutional revision to permit

an army

26% favor of constitutional revision to permit an army

At the same time...

Under Sato Eisaku cabinet, Autumn 1968:

64% "military force in necessary"

19% "SDF should be strengthened"

55% "present force level is acceptable"

74% "support SDF"

40% "SDF is not unconstitutional"

17% "SDF is unconstitutional"

International Reactions

Asia (led by North Korea, South Korea, and China)

Against Revision Bitter history Fear a resurgence of a

militaristic Japan Poor timing, when you factor

in other recent events in Japan

textbook controversy Yasukuni visits by Koizumi

International Reactions United States

Supports Revision Article 9 is a hindrance to

the US-Japanese alliance Japan should assume more

heavy lifting in its own/international defense

Feels Japan needs a military, if it is to sit on the Security Council

US Perspectives

"It is quite true that (the security agreement) was fashioned in the last century and we're living in a new security environment."

- Donald Rumsfeld,

US Secretary of Defense

Current Situation Changing

perceptions/nationalism among youth

Greater threat perceptions North Korean missile

launched over Japanese mainland

Worries over the rise of China

What future support will the US supply?

Increase in protests Military exchanges and

new programs

Current Situation - PKOs and PKFs

Peacekeeping a way to help countries torn

by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace

Forms confidence-building

measures power-sharing arrangements electoral support strengthening the rule of law economic and social

development. 

Current Situation - PKOs and PKFs

Peacekeeping a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace

Forms confidence-building measures power-sharing arrangements electoral support strengthening the rule of law economic and social development. 

UN peacekeepers: soldiers, military officers, police officers and civilian personnel from many countries

Scenarios for the Future Unlikely that no change will occur

Government pushing for change Lots of groups feel the need to address the ambiguity

of Article 9 Change 9 to give greater legitimacy to

PKOs/SDF/similar things but keep a defensive-only spirit

Removal of Article 9 completely in one step Extremely likely to upset China, NK, SK, others Probably will lead to incident BUT one of the biggest movements within the pro-

change camp

Scenarios for the Future Removal of Article 9 in stages No actual change to the article but further

erosion of its meaning example: offensive/defensive weapons

SDF involved in more operations, changes in the meaning of defense/self-defense example: nuclear weapon program w/ US