LDP set to legalise Japanese army soon

Japan times : LDP revises Article 9 in draft Constitution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Japan Times

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party on Friday endorsed a new draft Constitution featuring a rewritten version of war-renouncing Article 9 that would officially allow the nation to possess a military for self-defense.
...
The LDP's draft constitution retains Clause 1 of the original Article 9, which stipulates that the nation renounces war as a means of settling international disputes.

But Clause 2, which prohibits the nation from possessing a military, has been deleted.
...
The draft also spells out that the nation will maintain a "self-defense military," with the prime minister serving as the supreme commander tasked with ensuring the nation's peace and independence, along with the people's safety.

The self-defense military would also be allowed to engage in activities aimed at maintaining public order and protecting people's lives and freedom in emergencies, as well as to help secure international peace and safety, according to the draft.

---

In other words, they are going to legalise what Japan had already been doing in the last few years, by sending troops to Iraq, Pakistan, etc. There is nothing to worry about. The essential is that Clause 1 will be retained.

Quote:

---

The new draft also features five types of individual rights not stated in the current Constitution pertaining to government information, intellectual property, the environment, personal data protection and dignified treatment for disabled people and crime victims.

---

No problem with that. It is praiseworthy that they added a mention for "dignified treatment for crime victims", which could mean that the courts will have to rule in favour of victims of Japanese war crimes.

Quote:

---

Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits the nation and its organs from carrying out religious education and any other religious activity.

The LDP's draft prohibits the nation and public organs from engaging in religious education or any other religious activity that will lead to support for or interference with a specific religion beyond the scope of social courtesy, manners and customs.

---

This is a way to legalise politicians' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, as the visits will be considered as not being "beyond the scope of social courtesy, manners and customs". It will resolve the legal issue, but not the fact that it angers Japan's former victims. It also legalises the teachings of traditional customs linked to Shintoism or Buddhism. So far, it was theoretically illegal to teach school children about any religious festival or celebration such as Obon (=> Buddhist) or Shichigosan (=> Shinto), although they did. "Customs" is definitely the keyword in this modification. This gives a vagueness and flexibility to the interpretation of the Constitution of which the Japanese are so fond.

Still need a referendum to have the new constitution accepted though. It would be easier to adopt changes through the legislature-both the cabinet and a legislative commitee are able to affect changes in how the current constitution is officially interpreted.

I think that this draft would pass easily in a referendum, as there is little fundamental change. It would not boot US troops out of Japan, not anger Japan's neighbours too much (as Clause 1 is kept), so not much changes, really. I see it as just a formality to legalise the current state of affairs.

Japan does not have a "parliament" or other political institution like in other 'first world' countries so Koizumi and his cronies can do just what they like...they don't give a **** about their Nipponese anyway. A return to militarism would be a return to form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtician

Japan does not have a "parliament" or other political institution like in other 'first world' countries...

---

Care to qualify that or should we assume a moment of - shall I say - levity? :souka:

So dandylion, you would agree that Japan should go back to its belligerant militaristic past?

Japan is getting nationalistic now.

If Japanese government decides to have nuclear weapons in future, I'm gonna quit Japanese, then I'll become a costa rican, whatever...

I don't see visits to the shrine going away any time soon. As a matter of fact, I see it increasing. And this consitution has all the right ingredients written by the Japanese people for the Japanese people with a few token clauses to sound international enough to satisfy the very basic requirements.

Celtican - before I can take you seriously, you need to qualify what you posted -

Quote:

---

Japan does not have a "parliament" or other political institution like in other 'first world' countries Japan does not have a "parliament" or other political institution like in other 'first world' countries so Koizumi and his cronies can do just what they like...they don't give a **** about their Nipponese anyway.

---

Unless you are better at rhetoric and logic than out past friend McTojo, I see no reason why we would be able to engage in any kind of objective and productive discussion of Japanese strategic interests. I'm more than happy to post with anyone about anything, but I won't invest the time if all I get for my trouble are broad, unsupported, and vague replies.

One important facet of the change in constitutional interpretation is its effect on the Japanese economy. Coming out of the 1950's with the Yoshida Doctrine, Japan has limited its spending on the the military to 1% or less of the GDP. Therefore, I think one way to gauge the impact of a constitutional change in regards to the Japanese military is to see if the budget for the military grows significantly.

And, before anyone begins to get too far in their thinking that changing Article 9 of the Japanese Consititution is a sign that the Japanese are militaristic colonialists, one should really consider that Japan has been reluctant to rearm to greater degree and often has done so in response to U.S. desires and demands.

"As Vice-President Richard Nixon publicly admitted in 1953, U.S. leaders came to feel that imposition of Article 9 and the disarmament of Japan were "mistakes." When John Foster Dulles, special emissary of the Secretary of State, came to Japan in 1950 to negotiate a preace treaty and the end of the Occupation, he urged Japanese rearmament." (Pyle, Kenneth B., The Making of Modern Japan, 2nd Edition, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA (1996), p.234)

So you see, the U.S. - read that again, the U.S. (!) - has actually been pushing for greater Japanese rearmament since five years after WWII! This, strategically, makes sense for the U.S. in that since WWII, Japan has been one of the very few consistent allies in the Asian region. Considering that pressure coming over the last 50 odd years, I think it demonstrates that Japan is decidedly NOT militaristic considering that it was a major feat for the Japanese government to deploy a handful of troops to the Middle East as part of the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq. And these troops were not even involved in combat operations but rather rebuilding operations instead!!!
Rather than being overly aggressive and militaristic, Japan has often been criticized (such as in the first Iraq conflict) of utilizing 'checkbook diplomacy'; that is; Japan would choose time and again to contribute money versus troops when strategic participation was requested by the U.S.

To close up, I am really sick and tired of people launching off verbal attacks against Japan as being militaristic and aggressive without offering any support for their arguments. It isn't the early part of the 20th century anymore! Why don't you join us in the present! If you want to complain about something, how about protectionist trade practices? How about corrupt banking practices? Product dumping? Strongarming companies for patent rights? The influence of organized crime on politics and business? Industrial pollution of coastal waters? No, you can't be bothered to keep up with the times, to research your arguments, or approach a discussion of Japan with any thoughts of relevence or objectivity. You just want to keep beating the same old tired drum about bad, old militaristic and feudal Japan. Bleh!

*sighs and composes himself* Well, now that I've openned my big mouth and probably stunned/angered everyone . . . first, I am not directing my tirade against Maciamo, whose openning for this thread was well expressed and thought out. And, I am not directing these critiques against Index, lastmagisuncle, or Mandylion either; I really feel your comments were sincerely made to move the thread along and participate in a dialogue of ideads. Rather this is specifically for those who seem to drop the same tired comments and rhetoric in thread after thread regardless of what the topic (or reality) is about. You can proabably figure out who you are for yourselves . . .

I'm done now.
:sorry: :blush: :sorry: :blush: :sorry:

Replying to Mandylion's post: Well if you can see through the foggy, wet, ambiguous Japanese utterances then let's have a dialogue but until then ..
We have to just look at what the Nipponese have been in the past namely militaristic and just look at the children in Tokyo dressed in mini-military uniforms. Think about it

First, celtician, the part of my post above yours where I am ranting about unsupported arguments . . . *looks at your post* :auch: Even though you seem to want to banter with Mandylion, I hope you forgive me for having some comments of my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtician

Replying to Mandylion's post: Well if you can see through the foggy, wet, ambiguous Japanese utterances then let's have a dialogue but until then ..

---

Could you give some specific examples of "foggy, wet, ambiguous Japanese utterances?" Are there any utterances which contrast this?
Though you haven't provided any specific examples as yet (and therefore I'm not completely certain of what you mean), are your posts foggy, wet, and ambiguous?:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtician

We have to just look at what the Nipponese have been in the past namely militaristic and just look at the children in Tokyo dressed in mini-military uniforms. Think about it

---

Which 'Nipponese'? How far in the past (and compared to whom)? Which children? Are you refering to school uniforms, or a new secret army of highly trained child assassins that at this very moment are preparing to destroy all the world in an explosion of adorably cute violence? :worried: So, relaxing the provisions of article 9 has resulted in 8-year-olds forming fascist death squads . . . :shock:

But really, celtician, what does your post have to do with the Japanese constitution and its revision?!? :auch:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtician

Replying to Mandylion's post: Well if you can see through the foggy, wet, ambiguous Japanese utterances then let's have a dialogue but until then ..
We have to just look at what the Nipponese have been in the past namely militaristic and just look at the children in Tokyo dressed in mini-military uniforms. Think about it

---

You haven't really given us anything to think about, except a few crumby posts laced with subtle racist condescension and no substance whatsoever.

I think Mandylion and Kokuso would be quite interested in debating this with you if you could just articulate some sort of point that they could discuss, rather than just spewing empty rhetoric without providing any factual basis for it.

Well you both, Senseiman & Mandylion can sit back and wait for less "crumby" posts but I haven't seen much intellectual stimulation from either of you!

To get a little serious now. The type of government in Japan??? The diet is a type of oligarchy derived from the dictators (not only one) of WW2 with a continued thread from the decadent daimyos of the past.

And kokusu we're not talking about your pure fantasy of "8 year old fascist death squads" ....just go to Bunkyo-ku any day, morning or afternoon and you'll see with your own eyes the little Prussian uniforms with the ******' hats to boot!! Schoolkids! (Myogadani station seems to be their station)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtician

To get a little serious now. The type of government in Japan??? The diet is a type of oligarchy derived from the dictators (not only one) of WW2 with a continued thread from the decadent daimyos of the past.

---

Care to back any of that up? How is the current Diet a "type of oligarchy derived from the dictators of WW2"? I'd especially be interested in what "continued thread from the decadent daimyos of the past" is supposed to mean.

Just saying these things doesn't make them believable. I'd honestly be very interested in hearing specific facts about the Japanese government which makes you say them.