Toshio Matsuda, Commentator & Intl Economist
Straight from the Shoulder
Official Website : http://www.chokugen.com/e/
E-mail : masuda@sunraworld.com
FAX: 011 81 3 5965-0064
BackNumber is HERE!
The right to exercise collective self-defense
In this issue, I have decided to talk about my gjust argumenth regarding the right to exercise collective self-defense.
Each political party in Japan has a different stance and assertions regarding gthe right to exercise collective self-defenseh. The point on which they all agree is the traditional constitutional interpretation of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau (that the right to collective self-defense is unconstitutional).
There are three main reasons for this. 1) Changes in interpretation detract from the power of the constitution, 2) if you are going to change your interpretation, then you really should amend the constitution itself, and 3) you should think about what you can do within the framework and interpretation of the current constitution.
-
This is a gmistakeh when considered logically. Even if the current cabinet changes its interpretation, the constitution upon which the interpretation is made exists in all its dignity. Therefore, while it may have an impact on the prestige of that particular cabinet, the cabinetfs interpretation of the constitution is not going to impact the authority of the constitution itself.
-
There has been many a cabinet over the ages interpreting the constitution of the day in unconstitutional or constitutional fashions, and it is quite possible that a cabinet of the future could change its interpretation as well. Would we want to go and revise the constitution on each and every occasion? The constitution is the core body, interpretations of the constitution are derivatives of that core. In fact, you couldnft have any interpretations without a constitution. And the derivatives certainly donft exert any control over the core! So the argument that you have to revise the constitution in order to recognize the right to exercise collective self-defense is also a gmistakeh.
-
To maintain the current interpretation is an unconstitutional interpretation. Trying to come up with a constitutional method in an unconstitutional environment is basically a gdeceptionh.
In this sense, Ifm forced to say that the debate raging across Japan about the right to exercise collective self-defense is all misdirected. So, presumptuous as it may sound, I have decided to put forth a new gjust argumenth based on the facts as I see them.
My proposed revisions to US-Japan Security Treaty
Security is the most important thing for the Japanfs people and possessions. And the peace with that security is guaranteed under the US-Japan Security Treaty. In addition, it has already been decided that the Japanese Self-Defense Force shall conduct its defense strategy in conjunction with the US Army in terms of its current and future (over a 10 year period) guidelines on defense and basic defense program. Given these facts, America is currently Japanfs only true ally and there is no other ally outside of the US.
The US-Japan Security Treaty was signed by the two countries in San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and later ratified by both nations. It was then revised in 1960 to create the version that still stands today. As an international treaty, naturally it comes with an expiry date. And, in the case of the US-Japan Security Treaty, either contracting State can inform the other of its intention to terminate the treaty. The treaty would terminate exactly one year after that intention was conveyed.
The current US-Japan Security Treaty has been automatically renewed up until now, but the US or Japan can cancel or terminate the treaty at any time. Even the US Japan alliance is not for ever. It is not very sound to revise the constitution, which has no expiry date (i.e. is for ever), in order to facilitate the right to exercise collective self-defense that is focused on the US relationship and does indeed have a time limit. The right to exercise collective self-defense is aimed at the US and is based on the US-Japan Security Treaty. Therefore, it should be interpreted within the framework of the US-Japan Security Treaty itself.
The debate over whether the right to exercise collective self-defense is necessary also forms part of the debate over whether the current unilateral nature of the US-Japan Security Treaty (The US alone is responsible for Japanese defense). That is to say, the debate about whether the unilateral nature of the US-Japan Security Treaty should be transformed into a bilateral one. One of the key underlying reasons why the debate over whether the right to exercise collective self-defense has become so popular at this exact point in time, is basically because the US, that made the US-Japan Security Treaty unilateral in the first place, is now seeking a bilateral agreement. Given the changes in the global security situation today and the military balance between neighboring countries, if Japan judges that it is necessary for its own security to exert the right to exercise collective self-defense aimed at its American ally, then she should revise the US-Japan Security Agreement from a unilateral to a bilateral agreement. But then some are bound to argue that revising the US-Japan Security Treaty to make it a bilateral one, or, in other words, incorporating the right to exercise collective self-defense into the treaty by revising the US-Japan Security Treaty, does against the defense only policy of the current constitution.
The US, as a strategic nation, foresaw that such a situation might occur in the future in Japan and added the gobservance of international treatiesh into the supremacy (Article 97, item 2) of the Japanese Constitution. This ensures that any revised bilateral US-Japan Security Treaty (an international treaty) could not be hindered or transcended by any parliamentary resolution, administrative order or imperial edict. But it goes without saying that the supremacy would transcend Article 9 of the constitution referring to defense-only defense. If the Japanese people want to make it possible to exert the right to exercise collective self-defense, then there is no other just argument but to revise the US-Japan Security Treaty. But it is not necessary to amend the constitution itself in order to make it possible to exert the right to exercise collective self-defense. Consequently, it is not necessary to rush to amend the current constitution for that purpose. gWe shouldnft change the constitution to fit the changing times, but rather we should revise the security system (here the US-Japan Security Treaty) in line with the changing era.h Japan should propose an amendment to the US-Japan Security Treaty to the US before America demands one.
Anyone wanting to redistribute Straight from the Shoulder pieces or excerpts from the texts should direct their request in advance to the Toshio Matsuda Office at Sunraworld, Ltd. (Tel: 81-(0)3-3955-2121).
BackNumber is Here!