Newsletter

Following its defeat in World War II, Japan enacted its national constitution that included Article 9, a pacifist clause renouncing war as its sovereign right in order to achieve everlasting peace. This established the two chief principles of forsaking war and maintaining no armed forces with war potential. However, the Abe administration has recently been attempting to revise that very pacifist clause and thereby "normalize" Japan into a nation capable of engaging in war.

At the heart of discussions over constitutional revision in Japan, Article 9 has been a topic of great interest to conservative Japanese politicians ever since the end of the war and movements to revise the article gradually appeared as circumstantial changes occurred in domestic as well as international politics. The matter of revising the constitutional article was raised as a means to normalize Japan and reinforce the nation's self-defense forces to strengthen its alliance with the United States. So, the article has been an issue that has to do with both the reality of politics and pacifism in Japan.

As the Cold War drew to an end around 1989, discussions surrounding the purpose of revising Article 9 began to shift from pacifism toward establishing constitutionality for Japan's self-defense forces and for the security arrangement between Japan and the United States. During the Cold War, pacifist viewpoints had been dominant due to the development of nuclear forces and nuclear deterrent forces. As the military tension between the United States and the Soviet Union due to the advantage the United States possessed over nuclear forces began to crumble around the late 1970s, Japan became pressed to make efforts toward self-defense. Feeling increasingly threatened by the Soviet Union, dissatisfaction toward Japan's insufficient self-defense efforts grew in the United States to the point where arguments took place over whether Japan's security was getting a "free ride." The United States has thus been demanding that Japan increase its defense expenses. Although encouraged by the United States' request, Japanese officials in charge of national defense have found it impossible to comply, but this plainly reveals what sort of pressure is being applied upon Japan.

Such pressure from the United States has made it difficult since the end of the Cold War for Japan to pursue its ideal of a pacifist country through Article 9. It became necessary for Japan to strengthen its alliance with the United States by adopting active security policies rather than pacifist means originating from the Cold War. The United States has particularly been asking that Japan bear more of the military expenses for self-defense for the sake of maintaining a free market order around the world.

The Pacifist Constitution's Significance

Article 9 has been recognized as a symbolic clause for Japan's pacifist constitution. It suggested a new phase for mankind at a crossroads between survival and annihilation from Cold War Western-Eastern bloc confrontation with nuclear weapons. And in the face of critical circumstances propelled by the advancement of military technology and possibilities of a nuclear war to erupt, Article 9 has contributed to the formation of a new system of cooperation by promoting mankind's sovereignty rather than national sovereignty. Pressure from the Allied occupation of Japan indeed affected Japan in deciding not to retain its right to be armed, but what also played a major part in making that decision was its people at a time in need of a change in the way of thinking. Compared to the common sense of relying on military power to maintain sovereignty, Article 9 was the result of a fundamental change in the way of thinking that represented a huge step forward from the standpoint of pacifism.

Even to the Diet of Japan, endorsing Article 9 was proposed as an act of making a pioneering declaration to the world of the ideal Japan intended to pursue as a pacifist country. Rearmament has been actively discussed since the 1950s, but many in Japan have continued to support Article 9, sometimes through polls that would result in 70% agreeing to "renunciation of war" while 28% did not.

Japan's Liberal Democratic Party explains that Clause 1 of Article 9 is a revision of Article 1 in the "Pact of Paris" that went into effect in 1929 and that there has been talk within the party about "rewording the clause with easier terms." But because the clause defines "pacifism," one of the three main principles of the Japanese constitution, the party says basically no alterations will be made to the clause in order to emphasize that nothing will change. Yet, Article 9 and Japan's security system is closely related to the U.S.-Japan security system. The current U.S.-Japan security treaty is based on Article 9. Therefore, amending the article would make the U.S.-Japan security treaty undergo amendment, which would enable the U.S.-Japan alliance to play an increasingly global role in the world.

Continued Public Support for Pacifism

The public opinion in Japan still supports Article 9. The general public supports pacifism and shows a "positive" reaction toward Japan's current state of security and self-defense forces. Public law specialists consider self-defense forces as "unconstitutional," but the affirmative attitude toward self-defense forces has been spreading since the 1960s and the general public consider it as constitutional. This shows that many in Japan are aware of the self-defense forces and recognize it as compatible with Article 9.

Citizen support for a "constitutional revision" appeared in the 1990s along with the recognition that Article 9 might be an impediment for Japan in making international contributions. Public opinion supportive of Article 9's amendment grew as well (according to poll results that show identical tendencies regarding such support, albeit to different degrees). Public opinion against constitutional amendment peaked in the late 1980s, then dropped in the first half of the 1990s, and then in the second half of the 1990s, public opinion for constitutional amendment grew. These fluctuations show how changes in the international environment affects domestic politics in Japan. What is important is that there is a difference in public opinion between the amendment of the national constitution in general and that of Article 9. And it is necessary to note that the public opinion against amending Article 9 is predominantly stronger.

Changing U.S.-Japan Relations

The Obama administration of the United States succeeded the previous Bush administration's cooperative policy toward China and has valued dialogue and partnership. In terms of military power and finance, the Obama administration has been placing an emphasis on Asia. The Obama administration had jointly been exercising with China policies aimed at maintaining stable free market economies not only in Asia, but around the world. And in case China attempts to pursue an independent hegemony and build its own sphere of influence, the Obama administration has been exercising policies prepared to blockade China. These changes in the Obama administration's policies toward Asia has naturally been influencing the Japanese Prime Minister Abe's policies.

Amid such political surroundings, Japan's Abe administration began to reexamine constitutional amendment and strengthening its alliance with the United States. Based on changes in U.S. policies toward Asia and the opinion of many who advocate Article 9 in Japan, the Abe administration has been suggesting two different strategies. One of them is to carry out a reinterpretation of Japan's constitution. This would be a reinterpretation that acknowledges Japan's right to collective self-defense while taking into consideration the United States' vigilance against any sort of military power capable of conducting joint operations and the vigilance Japanese people possess against explicit constitutional amendment. Such a reinterpretation would amount to a virtual amendment of Japan's constitution.

The other strategy is to carry out an explicit constitutional amendment. This would involve avoiding an upfront amendment of Article 9 and instead facilitating beforehand an amendment of the constitution in general. Prime Minister Abe's idea of achieving such an amendment is to first push for a revision of Article 96 in the constitution. The prime minister has been attempting to achieve the revision by relying on the passive nationalism sitting deep within the minds of Japanese citizens. The kind of nationalism capable of supporting a stronger U.S.-Japan alliance or, depending on the circumstances, constitutional amendment. This passive nationalism is different from great-power chauvinism in that it is being used by the Abe administration to revive Japan's economy and recover its national identity that has been facing a series of critical situations.

Protecting vs Amending the Constitution

Article 9 of Japan's constitution has been a fiercely discussed subject in the reality of the nation's domestic political surroundings as well as the rivalry between the Western and Eastern blocs outside Japan during the Cold War. And ever since Japan began to maintain its self-defense forces, this incongruity between the ideal behind Article 9 and the political reality has especially grown worse. The overall consensus among Japanese scholars is that because Article 9 renounces war and prohibits military expenses, entities like the self-defense forces are inadmissible. Many who agree with that consensus regard Article 9's pacifism as meaningful to world history.

Lively discussions on whether to protect or amend the national constitution have been ongoing in Japan even after the Abe administration took office. And while the Abe administration has been pushing to pass a new security bill, three scholars of constitutional law, all recommended by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, testified that the newly proposed bill was "unconstitutional" at a session of the Japanese Lower House panel on constitutional issues on June 4, 2015. This launched an "uprising" among other experts of constitutional law in support of the three scholars, which later set into motion a movement opposing the newly proposed security bill.

Discussions over the constitution among politicians, scholars, and the media in Japan can be summed up as below. Those in favor of protecting the constitution point out that the new security bill is unconstitutional because it goes against Article 9 by acknowledging Japan's right to collective self-defense. Rescinding Article 9 would lift from the constitution the ban against possessing war potential, a ban that has successfully preserved post-war Japan as a peaceful country.

Those in favor of constitutional amendment, on the other hand, argue that the interpretation of Article 9 needs to change since even the article itself allows the exercise of a minimal right to self-defense due to changes in international circumstances since the end of the Cold War. In 2014, the Abe administration shifted its interpretation of Article 9 away from the existing view of the Japanese Cabinet Legislation Bureau through a cabinet decision that deemed Japan's right to collective self-defense as constitutional. And the Japanese Diet finally passed the new security bill approving Japan's collective self-defense right in 2015.

The Abe Administration's Goal

The Abe administration had originally planned to launch policies for constitutional amendment and a stronger alliance ahead of the upper house election in 2013 and bring them up as issues through the election campaign. It was however forced to postpone the plan as voices criticizing the administration's historical revisionism grew. After the election, the administration's strategy for constitutional revision broadened as moves to reinterpret the national constitution picked up speed. The key was to change interpretations by previous administrations on the right to collective self-defense to make it permissible under Article 9. That would provide the constitutional grounds to transform Japan's self-defense forces into forces with war potential alongside those of the United States. The plan was to produce a report suggesting reinterpretation through Diet debates before the Upper House election and then carry out a reinterpretation to support Japan's collective self-defense right, but this plan met with difficulties as the Abe administration came under increased scrutiny for its historical revisionism.

At a Lower House budget committee meeting in February 2016, Prime Minister Abe brought up the need to revise Paragraph 2 of the constitution's Article 9, which prohibits the maintenance of forces of any kind with war potential in Japan. He mentioned that 70% of Japanese scholars of constitutional law should discard their view of regarding self-defense forces as a violation of a constitution that no longer suits the times from being created "under U.S. occupation." This might as well be an open admission that Prime Minister Abe belongs among those who are squarely in denial of Article 9's significance.

In September 2015, Prime Minister Abe, with support from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, passed a military (security-related) legislation despite major public opposition, thereby going against constitutionalism and casting democracy away. Questions reflecting the decision against the views of past administrations were evaded with responses claiming that exercising the right to collective self-defense is constitutional and that the legislation belongs within Japan's constitutional boundaries.

The Abe administration is ultimately aiming to amend Japan's national constitution. Deforming the constitution through reinterpretation and passing new laws is a pretext for constitutional amendment. That much has been made evident through the suggestion that an "emergency situation clause" be introduced to the Japanese constitution, which would empower the prime minister's authority and limit the rights of citizens under emergency situations. Such a clause would incapacitate Article 9 by turning Japan into an armed country capable of war. Therefore, a constitutional reinterpretation does not reduce the need to amend the constitution, which means the Abe administration will surely get around to a constitutional amendment once the path to reinterpretation is paved to a certain extent.

Constitutional Amendment and its Future Outlook

The political scene in Japan is currently quite supportive toward constitutional amendment. As mentioned above, people in Japan expect their country to be able to make international contributions, but at the same time wish to preserve their nation's pacifism.

Should Japan eventually give up pacifism and revert to being a country with war potential, change will occur in Northeast Asia's strategic circumstances. In that case, South Korea will also have to strengthen its security-assuring network in Northeast Asia and accordingly devise a future plan of its own. Also, Japan's reinforced military power may not only cause strategic issues in the cooperation between South Korea, the United States, and Japan, but may bring back mortifying memories from past invasions. Emergencies that occur on the Korean peninsula will particularly add yet another layer of difficulty to the matter of military cooperation between South Korea, the United States, and Japan. And the matter of unifying the two Koreas will become an opportunity to reconfirm what kind of image Japan hopes to portray as a nation.