By JAEWON SHIN (11)
On Saturday, 18th of September at 2 a.m., the Japanese parliament passed a legislation regarding the overseas combat role for military. This was indeed after a tumultuous struggle with the opposition parties, but the effect of this was not to prevent the approval, but only to prolong subtly.
For some, this may be portrayed as a trivial legislation to incite controversy. This is part of what Abe and his party claims to be true. In addition, they say that the legislation is ‘necessary to protect the people’s lives and peaceful way of living and is for the purpose of preventing wars’.
However, these perspectives undermine the immense impact and meaning of the legislation. The bill violates the Japanese constitution set forth at the end of World War II. The significance lies on the fact that such constitution was established in order to prevent Japan from becoming a potential threat to the world ever again with its military power. As the parliament denounced the constitution, it is assuming rights to be engaged in war.
So how exactly does the legislation function and act against the constitution? In status quo, the military is limited in operation only to the circumstances of direct defense of Japan. Once the bill is passed, Japan’s military will be granted rights to cooperate with the United States and its allies in international conflicts. Simply put, they will be able to dispatch the forces to overseas territory.
Accumulating the facts, the proponents’ claim is established as a justification of their military intervention in foreign regions under the prerequisite of peace. In depth, they argue that since Japan’s military is as competent, they must have an equal alliance with the US.
The majority will feel skeptical about their attempt for vindication. There are varieties of reasons for this. Not only that Abe is an extremist in politics, but there exist numerous Japanese citizens and non-government parties that disagree with the legislation despite numerous accounts of elaboration.
In spite of such concerns, the real question lies on whether Abe really was obligated to abandon the Japanese constitution to perforce the legislation to pass. A constitution represents a nation’s comprehensive doctrine. Especially for Japan, as aforementioned, it was established to ensure that as a nation, it is determined to avoid wars in the latter of the outcome. Renouncing that ideal means simply to remain indulgent of military collision.
Thus, the primary intention of passing the bill is to permit Japanese military be off the bound established by its own constitution. It is sufficient to assume that they wish to engage in war. This is becoming a threat for many nations, and spark their citizens’ antipathy against Japan. However, that is what Abe seeks. Why? Such provocations are the only ways he can find justifications to declare war.
In comparison to many other nations that demonstrated remorse, Japan’s action is merely reprehensible. In fact, it is Abe and his parties that deserve to be criticized. Even his predecessors are well contrasted. For instance, Murayama and Kono, both former prime ministers of Japan, made statements respectively in 1993 and 1995 to apologize for Japan’s actions during World War II and colonial period.
With unprecedented change in Japan’s stance and willingness to increase their military, the world is terrified, realizing that war may occur in the near future. So how likely would that happen? Yet, the author contends that this is less probable. The majority opposes Abe’s action, even in Japan. The government cannot really do anything. In addition, although the majority of the right-wing politicians long-desired Japan’s freedom of sending its military overseas, they argue that militaristic method of conquering is anachronistic. Abe would almost be solitary in his stance if he wishes to create the imperialist Japan once again.
On Saturday, 18th of September at 2 a.m., the Japanese parliament passed a legislation regarding the overseas combat role for military. This was indeed after a tumultuous struggle with the opposition parties, but the effect of this was not to prevent the approval, but only to prolong subtly.
For some, this may be portrayed as a trivial legislation to incite controversy. This is part of what Abe and his party claims to be true. In addition, they say that the legislation is ‘necessary to protect the people’s lives and peaceful way of living and is for the purpose of preventing wars’.
However, these perspectives undermine the immense impact and meaning of the legislation. The bill violates the Japanese constitution set forth at the end of World War II. The significance lies on the fact that such constitution was established in order to prevent Japan from becoming a potential threat to the world ever again with its military power. As the parliament denounced the constitution, it is assuming rights to be engaged in war.
So how exactly does the legislation function and act against the constitution? In status quo, the military is limited in operation only to the circumstances of direct defense of Japan. Once the bill is passed, Japan’s military will be granted rights to cooperate with the United States and its allies in international conflicts. Simply put, they will be able to dispatch the forces to overseas territory.
Accumulating the facts, the proponents’ claim is established as a justification of their military intervention in foreign regions under the prerequisite of peace. In depth, they argue that since Japan’s military is as competent, they must have an equal alliance with the US.
The majority will feel skeptical about their attempt for vindication. There are varieties of reasons for this. Not only that Abe is an extremist in politics, but there exist numerous Japanese citizens and non-government parties that disagree with the legislation despite numerous accounts of elaboration.
In spite of such concerns, the real question lies on whether Abe really was obligated to abandon the Japanese constitution to perforce the legislation to pass. A constitution represents a nation’s comprehensive doctrine. Especially for Japan, as aforementioned, it was established to ensure that as a nation, it is determined to avoid wars in the latter of the outcome. Renouncing that ideal means simply to remain indulgent of military collision.
Thus, the primary intention of passing the bill is to permit Japanese military be off the bound established by its own constitution. It is sufficient to assume that they wish to engage in war. This is becoming a threat for many nations, and spark their citizens’ antipathy against Japan. However, that is what Abe seeks. Why? Such provocations are the only ways he can find justifications to declare war.
In comparison to many other nations that demonstrated remorse, Japan’s action is merely reprehensible. In fact, it is Abe and his parties that deserve to be criticized. Even his predecessors are well contrasted. For instance, Murayama and Kono, both former prime ministers of Japan, made statements respectively in 1993 and 1995 to apologize for Japan’s actions during World War II and colonial period.
With unprecedented change in Japan’s stance and willingness to increase their military, the world is terrified, realizing that war may occur in the near future. So how likely would that happen? Yet, the author contends that this is less probable. The majority opposes Abe’s action, even in Japan. The government cannot really do anything. In addition, although the majority of the right-wing politicians long-desired Japan’s freedom of sending its military overseas, they argue that militaristic method of conquering is anachronistic. Abe would almost be solitary in his stance if he wishes to create the imperialist Japan once again.