An ordinary session of the Diet was extended until September with the strong intention to pass the security related bill. Some public opinion against this bill is summarized below:
One is that Japan may become bellicose country by taking wrong national policy again. The other is that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau until today took the interpretation that collective self-defense is a violation of national constitution law, and therefore this exercise of bill is against the constitution.
Whether it is a violation of national constitution, the interpretation changes in the course of history
It is necessary to pay an attention to the point that the interpretation of constitution has changed in the course of history.
In June, 1946, then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida gave the answer in the plenary session of House of Representatives.
“It is a question concerning the right of self-defense (omission), resulting not to accept all armaments and right of belligerency of the country in Article 9 Clause 2 (omission), thus the war as the motion of the right of self-defense is also abandoned. ”
The Self -defense Forces were founded afterwards, and it was made clear at Sunagawa case that the Supreme Court made the judicial judgement,
“Our country has this right as a sovereign nation, not the thing to be denied.”
Afterwards, Cabinet Legislation Bureau stated that Japan can exercise the right of individual self-defense but cannot exercise collective self-defense rights.
The trust of Japan-U.S. alliance is also the important point of the issue
Today everybody agrees that the war that brings about terrible outcome should be absolutely prohibited.
On the other hand people asserting that all war after the Meiji Era were absolutely mistake will not represent the majority.
For example compared to the people who have the opinion that Russo-Japanese War was regarded to be a failure,
the majority of the people would think that Japan tolerated and fought well under severe condition.
As for main reason of public viewpoint to Russo-Japanese War being different from World War II depends on what countries were involved, international environment and result.
Japan may have the ability to shoot down a missile targeted to the USA, but what happens if the interpretation of the constitution prohibited such acts, because it will mean that
Japan exercised collective self-defense. Should that be the case this may cause a serious damage to the trust of the Japan-US alliance and hence weaken the alliance.
The world situation has changed to the point that was not expected at the time of the constitution was established
The world situation has drastically changed since the constitution was established, with the example such as the technology development to enable to shoot down the missile and
cyber world with no actual border.
It is obvious that a country is not able to protect people’s lives and properties just by differentiating individual and collective self-defense.
Therefore it is very important to raise discussion based on historical, geo-political and legal stability perspective and meet national consensus.
Keiichiro Asao, Member of the House of Representatives