What is the article 9 argument in Japan?
In: Other
So, the current iteration of Japan was created after WW2, when Japan had just recently been caught on the wrong side of the war. Its new constitution reflected this, and particularly article 9 of the constitution that forbade Japan to use wars to settle international dispute. Essentially Japan’s military is a defensive force only and has heavy limitations on how it can operate.
In the last decade or so this view is starting to come under challenge. The government has recently implemented laws that *reinterpret* clause 9 and how the defensive army can be used while not technically needing a constitutional amendment. This has made a lot of people, both within and outside of Japan quite angry because they see it as a breach of the constitution. Some countries approved, others disagree. As such there has been some debate on if, how, why, and when article 9 should apply or be amended. Some see it as a vestige of an older time that doesn’t apply in today’s increasingly tense climate where war in the east might be a reality, others see it necessary to ensure peace and prosperity.
Article 9 says that Japan will never ever declare war on anyone ever again.
The people who say they should keep it say that the last time Japan was declaring war willy nilly, it resulted in their entire island burning down and getting nuked. Besides, being peaceful is a good thing and it should stay in the constitution.
The people who say they should remove it say that WW2 was a very long time ago, and that people are different now, and it makes no sense that a strong nation should keep that thing in the constitution.
Complicating this is that the people who got invaded, enslaved, and genocided by the Japanese feel that they were never particularly sorry. And that removing that clause would be another sign of how not sorry they were.
Also those people also don’t want a repeat of the last time the Japanese invaded them, so they’ll be buying/building more war stuff. And everyone pointing more war stuff around is not a good thing for peace.
At the end of WW2 Japan was seen as a militaristic state and a threat to its neighbours so when America occupied Japan some steps were taken to lessen the threat posed by Japan. These steps included article 9 which was broadly accepted by the population at the time who saw the damage that war had done to the country. However lately it is seen by some in Japan that it was imposed on Japan rather than arrived at naturally and even that some countries like China could even exploit article 9 and the restrictions imposed on the Japanese military to undermine Japan.
Article 9 is a statement declaring Japan Will Never Declare War on a foreign nation .
It’s a hold over from post WWII Japan and the government that was put in place after it.
The last time Japan was going Declaring war all over the place it ended poorly for them and they also ended up with quite a few war crimes under their belt. People have been arguing for the removal of this article, but some argue that leaving it shows Japan’s respect for the events that transpired during the war and removing this article should display the opposite sentiment politically. However Japan is arguing(and it has merit) that this article was imposed on them unnaturally it places a threat on their sovereignty, as this article, without any changes, would in theory prevent Japan of defending their own territory in the event of a war breaking out in the East(ie: China using this article to undermine Japan and keep them out of a conflict they provoke).
After World War II ended, the US occupied Japan for 7 years and rebuilt the nation and its laws. The US wrote a constitution for Japan. Here’s what article 9 says:
>*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.*
There was an attitude within the US forces at that time (immediately post-World War II) that Japan was an inherently violent and aggressive nation that was a danger to other nations. By putting in this article, it was an attempt to change how Japan behaved and was a response to this inacurate belief. Article 9 was interpreted to mean that Japan should not have military forces and never fight aggressively in a war. So instead of Japan having their own military, the US established extensive military bases throughout Japan and Okinawa and is there ostensibly to defend Japan. The bases are still there today.
This was a biased view that Japan was inherently violent and militaristic–it’s no more so than other nations, but to be fair it was the propaganda that the Japanese military leaders had been putting out for decades. But while people in the West have extensive knowledge of Germans and Germany and so could separate Nazi propaganda from understandings about Germans and Germany as a whole and historically, they were worse at sniffing out such distinctions regarding Japan. But this is just background as to *why* the article is there, not about the current argument.
The Japanese public was overwhelmingly OK with article 9 at the time the constitution was written. The public was sick of war and had seen a tremendous amount of death–there was less support for World War II among the Japanese public than you might think based on stereotypes and movies. So with the end of the wayr, Japan was completely demilitarized and there were just police, no military forces. Then, after the US left, Japan gradually started to take a few steps, like establishing the Self-Defense Forces, basically like a National Guard. Over time there were a few more military steps that Japan took, but fairly minor ones. Japan sent troops to assist the US in some endeavors, but in non-combat roles. But by and large, the vast majority of Japanese people were pretty happy for many many years with article 9 as military action was unpopular and several generations of Japanese people grew up with no sense of having a military or being aggressive or even thinking in those terms. The Japanese self-image was of a peace-loving nation with war far in the rear-view mirror.
Over time and especially in the last 20 years or so, militaristic, conservative forces in Japan have gained a significant amount of power and position, and these far-right groups have long chaffed about Article 9. They want to have a military and an army. In the grand scheme of things, this isn’t unreasonable–every country has an army and the ability to defend itself and Article 9 was imposed by a military occupational government. But in reality this is troubling, because the people agitating to abolish Article 9 are militant and aggressive and will upset the status quo that Japan has known for the past 75 years, as well as being contrary to the desires of a large percent of the Japanese population. And it could escalate some regional conflicts with China and North Korea. These same guys also want to amend the Constitution to remove the measures giving women equality to men, as part of an overarching conservative agenda.
Latest Answers