The constitution

The Constitution -Why do we need a constitution?

=Japanese Constitution= Promulgated on November 3, 1946

Came into effect on May 3, 1947

Japan’s post-Second World War constitution was born when Japan was occupied by Allied forces, the United State. The Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces and legislators of the constitution thought Japan would not have a military force again. Article 9 of the Constitution renounces war and prohibits Japan from maintaining the war potential. However, as the United States changed its policy of demilitarizing Japan, the United States asked them to share the burden of maintaining the security of Japan and, for the sake of international peacekeeping, Japan gradually increased its defense capability and developed a somewhat more technical interpretation of article 9. 

=Article 9=

"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on 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." — Article 9, The Constitution of Japan (1947)

The Abe administration, in a Cabinet decision made on Tuesday — the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Self-Defense Forces — changed the government’s longstanding interpretation of the Constitution so that Japan can exercise the right to collective self-defense.

♦Merit of revising Article 9 -We can stop misunderstanding between the constitution and in the reality.

Arguments
♦Some people believe that Article 9 is an important entry in the Japanese Constitution.

♦ Constitutional scholars think that it is unconstitutional for Article 9 to allow the right to self-defense.

♦In Japan, the Prime Minister Abe and his party support changing the Article 9. However, older generations and university professors do not.

New Vocabulary
1. aspiring - aiming for sth good/valuable

2. renounce - refuse to recognize/engage in something

3. belligerency - the state of being at war or in an armed conflict

4. mounting - increasing/growing

5. premier - Prime Minister

6. pacifism - peace/non-aggression

7. package of bills - grp of potential laws/amendments

8. raised hackles - raised concerns

9. destigmatize - make acceptable again

10. deeply troubled - deeply concerned/worried

11. through the back door - indirectly/covertly

12. de facto - in reality

13. robust - tough/well-developed

14. more circumspect - less direct/cautious/careful

15. inconceivable - unthinkable/unimaginable

== Other Articles ==

Should Japanese liberals support revising Article 9? 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party seem determined to revise the Constitution soon. Japan seems very polarized( to divide into sharply opposing factions, political groups) concerning this issue, with the right strongly supporting it and most other Japanese opposed, because they do not want any revision to the “Peace Constitution,” especially sacred Article 9. This article was put in the Constitution by the U.S. Occupation in 1947 and literally says Japan may not engage in war or have a standing military. Even with its quarter-million strong Self-Defense Forces, the Constitution has limited Japan’s military strictly to only its own defense and to other missions in noncombat(not requiring fighting) roles.

Through the years the interpretation of Article 9 has changed, first by the Occupation and later by Japanese governments whose interpretation was that it was meant to outlaw(a person, group, excluded from the benefits and protection of the law) “aggressive war” and military, but that Japan was entitled, like all nations, to the “inherent right of self-defense.”

Most Japanese liberals oppose this strenuously (vigorously/energetically) on the grounds that it changes Japan’s “Pacifist state” and may involve Japan in war. No one can predict the future or how a government may use the interpretation of the Constitution, and fear of involvement in war is a legitimate concern. But we can judge how governments have used the current Constitution in the past and make some informed judgments without emotional knee-jerk reactions from the right or left. And let us get one thing clear: Japan’s policies have never been “pacifist.” 'True pacifists do not allow other countries to protect them and fight their battles nor do they believe in only self-defense.'' '''

All this began to change when the Cold War ended, China arose as a major military power, and North Korea became a threatening and unpredictable neighbor. Japan needed the U.S. even more than during the Cold War. The U.S. expected greater Japanese participation in the alliance than just providing bases. ''The excuse of Article 9 no longer was as effective now that Japan was a major economic power and was on the front line of its own more dangerous regional threats. ''