What is the article 9 argument in Japan?
In: Other
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