http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1740191,00050004.htm
Japan is considering whether a preemptive strike on North Korean missile bases would be an acceptable form of self-defence under the pacifist Japanese constitution
[…]Japan’s Constitution currently bars the use of military force in settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from maintaining a military for warfare.
Tokyo, however, has interpreted that to mean it can have armed troops to protect itself.
It’s about time. It’s also time Japan developed its own nuclear arsenal.
The US wrote the Japanese Constitution after WWII. The clause mentioned above was specifically included by the US to prevent this sort of thing. The Japanese interpretation is correct. They’d need to change their Constitution before they could engage in a preemptive strike.
I think any limited action against North Korea is likely to be counter-productive. A limited attack will result in sending bombs and protection money (“aid”) at the same time, since no one wants an open war. Japan, South Korea, and China dread the fall of the regime for fear of dealing with the refuges, so no action will be taken.
The current course of action is the epitome of pragmatism: foreign aid from our enemies and allies keeps the regime afloat and supports military and terrorism operations. American politicians don’t want a costly war on their watch, and the neighbors don’t want to deal with the refuges, who are too ethically similar to be ignored. Potential enemies use their relationship as negotiate.ng leverage, and Western politicians are happy to use it as a distraction from domestic affairs. Meanwhile, the bulk of the starving and largely ignores endure nameless suffering. The same situation applies to the Palestinians. The point is not lost on them: when they are free to do so, I have read of N. Koreans, Palestinians, and Iranians have welcomed foreign occupation.
The problem with the US “pacification” of Japan was that we are left with no independant stabilizing force in East Asia. During the Cold War, the US and USSR vied for the region, each policing their own blocs. Today, Russia has no real interest in policing the region and thus the US is stuck in a losing situation trying to keep the peace in a region in which it has no business being in.
What we need is a militarily strong Japan to not only keep China in check, but discourage petty dictatorships like North Korea from causing trouble in the region. Without a strong Japan, eventually there will only be a strong China in the region with us either having to confront the Chinese or else surrender East Asia to their control.
The US wrote the Japanese Constitution after WWII. The clause mentioned above was specifically included by the US to prevent this sort of thing.
Specifically to protect aggressive Communist thugocracies from Japan? Which history book did you read that in, Punk?
Actually, I’ve been told the same thing. Since the U.S. is supposed to have told the Japanese what their post-war constitution would look like, it isn’t difficult to believe. Again, not saying it’s true, but I’ve never thought of questioning it: at the time, the Japanese were viewed as a dangerous country that had twice gone to war. Viewing their history, at that point, one would have assumed that they were the country in the region most capable of taking out any of their neighbours.
In the one conversation I’ve had on the topic with a Japanese (in the late 1980’s) he was adamant that his generation (embarrassed by the martial history of his ancestors) did not want his government expanding the army; I also remember him stressing that his generation always wanted to stress the word “defence” in “defence forces”.
It does sound like the Japanese attitude has changed, with North Korea’s repeated threats. it’s time the Japanese armed themselves with nukes and begun working on some type of missile-defence.
I also think the Chinese (traditional enemies of the Japanese ) might actually be spurred into action if they thought it might curb Japan’s military.
Actually, I’ve been told the same thing. Since the U.S. is supposed to have told the Japanese what their post-war constitution would look like, it isn’t difficult to believe.
Correct. A committee of Japanese scholars had submitted a revised constitution in 1946, but Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commander of the Allied occupation, rejected it as too conservative. MacArthur then appointed two U.S. Army officers to draft a document, which with a few changes became Japan’s present constitution. Under Article 9 of that constitution, the “Japanese people renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_…rafting_process
Actually, I’ve been told the same thing. Since the U.S. is supposed to have told the Japanese what their post-war constitution would look like, it isn’t difficult to believe. Again, not saying it’s true, but I’ve never thought of questioning it: at the time, the Japanese were viewed as a dangerous country that had twice gone to war.
That is true, but what Punk said–that the U.S.'s reason was specifically to protect Communist aggressor-wannabes from Japan–is not. The U.S. wanted to protect innocent nations from Japan.
That is true, but what Punk said–that the U.S.'s reason was specifically to protect Communist aggressor-wannabes from Japan–is not. The U.S. wanted to protect innocent nations from Japan.
I never said *anything* about protecting aggressor-wannabes from Japan.
The “sort of thing” I had in mind was preemptive strikes. The US wanted Japan unable to undertake any sort of offensive military action against *anyone* (the clause would allow Japan to attack N. Korea if attacked by N. Korea).
I never said *anything* about protecting aggressor-wannabes from Japan.
The “sort of thing” I had in mind was preemptive strikes.
I don’t see the difference between the two.
This is from a site that has constituations from around the world. The Japanese one appears to address this topic in a single paragraph:
CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
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.
They really ought to modify that.