After years of consideration and debate, Japan has finally proposed changes to its constitution that would free some of the post-WWII constraints on its martial forces. What next? Well, looks like more years of consideration and debate.
Japan’s dominant political party has backed constitutional reforms that would permit the pacifist nation to take a more assertive military stand.
As the centrepiece of its 50th anniversary celebrations, the Liberal Democratic Party endorsed a draft version of the national constitution that recognises Japan’s right to maintain a military force and play a stronger role in international security.
The proposed charter retains the first part of the 1947 constitution’s Clause 9, which renounces war as a means of settling international disputes, and still limits the scope for military action.
But a significant change in the wording makes it clear Japan can maintain military forces, rather than merely self-defence forces.
This change in Japan’s position has long been urged by the US which, as the occupying power in 1947, imposed the pacifist charter on the defeated nation.
Although the LDP has stretched constitutional restrictions to the limit – non-combatant units have been sent abroad many times in the past decade, including to Cambodia, East Timor and Iraq – the changes would allow Japan to take part in armed peacekeeping.
[…]
The proposed amendments would not come into effect for several years. To change the constitution, the LDP needs to win a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors. The amendments would then be put to a national referendum, needing the approval of a simple majority of voters.
I support this move whole-heartedly, as last month I blogged the following:
It is late 2005. Japan’s constitutional constraints are the results of the nation’s aggressiveness over sixty years past. It is time for a revision — it is time for a great nation and regional and global power to unshackle itself, say it can act responsibly on the global stage, and become the contributor that it should be.
Unsurprisingly, China has firmly stated its opposition to the proposed constitutional changes, much preferring to have a pacifist Japan off its shore. Hmmm …. there might be some history between those two.