By re-interpreting Japan's pacifist post-War Constitution to allow the country to exercise its right to collective self-defence, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe paves the way for Tokyo to deepen its involvement in regional security
In a political system known for its slow decision-making, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s decision to re-interpret the Japanese Constitution so as to allow the country to exercise its right of collective self-defence is significant. It marks a turning point in Japan’s security policy. While some have hailed the decision as a great victory for Mr Abe, others have questioned the procedure he adopted to initiate such an important change.
The critics contend that the Prime Minister should have followed a more formal method of initiating an Amendment to Article 9 of the Constitution. But, for this, Mr Abe would require a two-thirds majority in both the Houses of the Japanese Diet. The ruling coalition does not enjoy that much support in the Upper House.
Also, with more than 55 per cent of Japanese voters opposed to this constitutional amendment, Mr Abe was not sure of getting a favourable vote in the referendum that he would have had to hold, as prescribed by the Constitution. It was a case of political expediency to decide on collective self-defence through a re-interpretation of the Constitution, instead of seeking a formal amendment.
The issue of Japan’s right to collective self-defence goes back to 1947 when the Japanese Constitution was promulgated under the influence of the US Occupation authorities. Article 9 of the Constitution states that Japan renounce the use of force as an instrument to settle disputes. In pursuance of this objective, it further states that Japan will never maintain land, sea and air forces.
In 1981, the Japanese Government clarified that, while Japan enjoys the right to collective self-defence, it cannot exercise it, as it would violate the Constitution. Its stated position was that while Japan has renounced the use of force, it has not abandoned its right to defend itself. As a free country, Japan possesses the right to individual and collective self-defence. But measures taken for self-defence should be limited to minimally required levels. Since collective self-defence measures would exceed those levels, they would violate the Constitution.
Successive Japanese Governments stood by this interpretation even though they faced relentless pressures from the US Government, which criticised Article 9 as an obstacle to Japan carrying out its obligations under the security alliance. It is well-known that Japan was severely criticised during the Gulf War of 1990-1991 for its checkbook diplomacy. Tokyo learnt a bitter lesson from the war that mere monetary assistance will not be sufficient to sustain its alliance with the US. The expectations of the alliance in the post-Cold War period had drastically changed — every ally is expected to render not only financial, but also human contributions whenever military action take place.
Consequently, Japan’s response to the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by swift action. It passed special anti-terrorism laws which expanded the role of the Self-Defence Forces. It also dispatched vessels to the Indian Ocean to provide fuel supplies to the coalition forces in Afghanistan. During Iraq war, then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi sent Japanese personnel to non-combat areas, but faced stiff resistance as domestic public opinion was against the US intervention.
Mr Abe came to power in December 2012 for the second time with a thumping majority in the Diet. Since then, he has sought to put into action many of his long-cherished nationalist ideas, which would make Japan a ‘normal country’. A staunch supporter of the US-Japan alliance, he believes that the continued presence of the US in the Asia-Pacific region is needed for maintaining strategic equilibrium.
Mr Abe constituted a special commission under Mr Shunji Yanai to study Japan’s exercise of collective self-defence. The Yanai Commission concluded that Japanese security will be threatened if the ban on collective self-defence and collective security is not removed. In particular, it considered the question of how to extend support for defending US naval vessels, for intercepting a ballistic missile targeting US territory, and for aiding peace-keeping forces.
As Sino-Japanese relations become increasingly tense, particularly over the Senkaku issue, a crisis (even if accidental) could occur leading to a military showdown. The US is committed to defending the Senkaku Islands under Article V of its security treaty with Japan.
But if Japan enjoys the right to CSD, it can extend considerable assistance to its ally as well. Mr Abe also believes that the right to CSD can help Japan deepen its involvement in regional security and lead to building security networks with countries like Australia, the Philippines, India and Vietnam.
Notably, even Mr Abe has cautioned that Japan is not going to be drawn into wars, fighting for friends abroad, and that many of the present restrictions on SDF will remain in place. But critics worry that the change in constitutional position provides the option to despatch SDF personnel to wars abroad, and also arouses the expectation that Japan will send its forces.