U.S. faces dilemma with Japan’s waning support for re-writing constitution

(The Intelligence Daily) -- It might seem ironic that the United States who wrote Japan’s post-war constitution, by way of legal committee formed by General McArthur in 1947, are now the ones applying pressure on Tokyo to alter it.

U.S. policy makers have for sometime been quietly suggesting to Japanese officials that a modification be made to Article 9, which prevents Japan from utilizing its Self-Defense forces in foreign countries. Currently Japan is assisting with efforts in Afghanistan by supplying fuel to U.S. and other coalition naval ships in the Indian Ocean. But some in the Bush administration would like to see Japan become much more involved in world events and that’s proving to be a hard sell in the land of the rising sun.

The Afghan mission, made possible by a special but limited resolution, has faced criticism in Japan and came close to collapse when in November 2007, opposition leader Ichiro Ozawa and the DPJ party refused to go along with the Government. It was only with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda’s rare step of utilizing a two-thirds majority rule in January 2008 to override the rejection that the continuation of the naval mission could continue to proceed.

To deploy troops in future conflicts would not only seem to be an equally hard sell to Japanese policy makers, but would in fact require the re-writing of Article 9 in the constitution. And for the first time in 15 years, public support for the alteration is fading.

In a recent poll produced by the Yomiuri Shinbun, one of Japan’s leading newspapers, 43.1 per cent of respondents said that they favored keeping the 1947 constitution as it is. 42.5 per cent of the respondents supported revisions. Perhaps most surprisingly however was that a large 82 per cent of those polled specifically supported keeping Article 9 unchanged in its wording which essentially blocks Japanese forces from participating in major peacekeeping and military operations outside its own borders.

The “No War” clauses as it is sometimes referred to reads as follows: “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.”

Although publicly, U.S. officials deny they have any opinion on the matter, privately this is causing some American lawmakers a bit of a headache as they look to garner fresh assistance on costly and politically sensitive operations. Japan is a key player to American interests in Asia and it is estimated that 33,453 U.S. military personnel are currently stationed throughout the country which in its self has been a hot and controversial topic recently.

There is little doubt that American forces could benefit greatly from the assistance Japan could provide on international situations. With the Bush administrations on its way out, and a new administration to take the helm by years end, government officials have no choice but to start tapping other allies for possible future conflicts. Iraq has been a boiling pot that will undoubtedly limit American participation in other world conflicts for years to come. Continued dependency on U.K. assistance is all fine and dandy, but lawmakers in both countries know a new and “fresh” ally is needed. Some in Washington are asking “who’s up for sushi?”

The guidelines for the Japan – U.S. defense cooperation are clear as to the level of involvement and responsibilities both nations expect of each other. Bilateral actions in response to an armed attack against Japan remain a core aspect of the defense cooperation pact. With a hostile North Korea and a well armed Chinese air force not too far away, the immediate benefit for Japan because evident.

Additional to this the established agreement spells out command coordination and intelligence sharing activities as well as logistics support activities that benefit both nations.

But the possibility of bringing Self-Defense forces into an armed conflict in which Japan is not directly threatened is difficult and currently unconstitutional. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sought to revise or at least broaden the interpretation of Article 9 but stepped down in September of 2007 due to internal pressure from his ruling party, the LDP. Current Prime Minister Fukuda has been clear that rewriting Japan’s constitution is not one of his priorities.

And so the United States is faced with a dilemma. Where to turn? The answer may take some time to resolve.



© 2008 Alexander Pappas