Transcript Japan in PKO, PKR, and Article 9

Japan in PKO, PKF, and Article 9
Marie SAKAI
Clara GILLISPIE
YONEMOCHI Emiko
YAMAGUCHI Megumi
TORAIWA Saki
Text of Article 9
1) 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 SelfDefense 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



Vary on whether to revise
or remove Article 9
Identifying characteristics:





xenophobic -->
internationalist
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 ProRevision 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

Because violence is not the answer (pacifists)

(traditionalists)
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 Ikeda Hayato cabinet in Aug, 1962:
61%
opposed to constitutional revision to permit an army
26%
favor of constitutional revision to permit an army
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

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


Forms






a way to help countries torn
by conflict create conditions
for sustainable peace
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 defensiveonly 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 prochange 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