Article 9 Continues to Impede Japan's Defense Capabilities

このページを日本語で読む

Seventy-eight years ago, on May 3, Japan's current constitution, including Article 9, became the basic law of the land.

Today, this country faces a severe security environment. Concerns remain that a Taiwan contingency could easily evolve into a Japan emergency. Russia and North Korea, accomplices in the invasion of Ukraine, are Japan's antagonistic neighbors. China and North Korea are relentlessly expanding their militaries. Meanwhile, Chinese and Russian naval and air forces do not hesitate to try to intimidate Japan under the guise of joint patrols.

On top of that, United States President Donald Trump has returned to power. He delights in defying conventional wisdom and is now busy shaking up the global security and economic environment.

Hindering Diplomacy and Defense

Article 9, the so-called "no war clause" of the Constitution, has not protected postwar peace. Instead, leftist forces have embraced Article 9, using it to impede the development of our defense capabilities. Up to now, the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) and the Japan-US security arrangements have managed to make up for the shortcomings of Article 9.

Nonetheless, President Trump caused a stir in March when he expressed dissatisfaction with the Japan-US Security Treaty. He maintained that the current situation is completely one-sided, saying, "We have to protect Japan, but they don't have to protect us."

In exchange for the mutual defense commitment, Japan has provided bases for US forces. These have also significantly contributed to the global strategy of the United States. Furthermore, Japan has enacted security-related laws that allow for the limited exercise of the right of collective self-defense. This means that Japan and the United States can now defend each other by exercising the right of collective self-defense if Japan's existence is threatened. In the face of the threat from China, even the Trump administration is unlikely to abandon the Japan-US security alliance.

Even so, for Japan, the Japan-US alliance anchors its foreign and security policies. It cannot help but feel uneasy about the President, who is commander-in-chief of the US military, voicing doubts about the state of the alliance. Also, apart from defense issues, this concern could affect Japan's stance toward the United States in tariff and other economic negotiations.

*Debate takes place in the Constitutional Review Commission of the Diet's House of Representatives.*

Precluding Broader Alliances

Allies of the United States other than Japan, such as NATO nations and the Philippines, have pledged mutual defense premised on the full-spectrum exercise of the right of collective self-defense. The norm in global alliances is that, even with a difference in national power, allied countries should be on an equal footing legally and defend each other.

On this point, Trump is more in tune with the view commonly accepted around the world. It is Japan that defies this orthodox view. Japan's unreasonable position comes from its interpretation of Article 9, which renounces war and prohibits the possession of military forces. However, Japan also interprets this provision in a way that prohibits the full exercise of the right of collective self-defense.

We have no way of knowing what kind of US president will appear on the scene in the future or how American public opinion could change. However, because of Article 9, there is inherent instability in Japan's only alliance.

As Japan is unable to pledge its exercise of full-spectrum collective self-defense, the threat from China continues to rise. At the same time, we are unable to forge alliances with countries other than the US. This is because Japan cannot say, "We will not protect your country, but we want your country to protect Japan."

After all, the US formed an alliance in return for Japan providing military bases on our soil. In other words, our national interests happened to coincide at the time.

Article 9 also precludes Japan from developing "dynamic" diplomacy aimed at providing security for the lives of the Japanese people. For example, this might be achieved by increasing the number of treaty allies. As things stand now, Japan can only build quasi-alliances.

Preventing Rescue of Its Own Citizens

Although Japan is moving forward with acquiring retaliatory capabilities, Article 9 prohibits the use of force overseas. That means that even if the location of Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea is known, SDF special forces will not be allowed to rescue them.

*Families of abduction victims and participants cheer at a national rally calling for the immediate return of all abduction victims. In Tokyo on November 23. (©Sankei by Kanata Iwasaki)*

With Article 9, the current constitution not only fails as a peace constitution, but also contains provisions that go against the Japanese national character. The pressing question is, "How long will we continue to turn a blind eye to the flaws and limitations of Article 9?"

Progress regarding constitutional reform by the constitutional review commissions of the two houses of the National Diet is extremely slow. In fact, they have not even reached an agreement on adding explicit mention of the Self-Defense Forces. That is extremely unfortunate.

However, even explicit mention of the SDF is not enough to correct the defects of Article 9. Paragraph 2 of Article 9, which states that Japan will never maintain land, sea, and air forces, should be deleted. Japan should henceforth be allowed to maintain a military to protect its people and the international order, just like other democracies around the world.

As a first step, amending the Constitution to explicitly recognize the existence of the SDF has some merit. The meaningless argument that the SDF is unconstitutional, which is prevalent among constitutional scholars, could thus be eliminated once and for all.

We can also use such an amendment to help raise public understanding of security issues and the roles played by our defense forces, including for deterrence. These should be taught in public schools and raised in other public forums.

Seeking a Constitution Prepared for Emergencies

There is also an urgent need for emergency provisions in the Constitution. These are needed to prepare for large-scale emergencies, such as a major earthquake in the Nankai Trough or directly beneath the capital region, or an eruption of Mount Fuji. That said, it is shocking that the constitutional review commissions fail to recognize this omission. They are only discussing how to respond to situations in which holding elections would be difficult.

*A Japan Self-Defense Forces helicopter searches a flooded residential area in Tozawa Village, Yamagata Prefecture. Photo taken at 10:36 am on July 26, 2024. (©Kyodo)*

The essential issue in a state of emergency is to provide for temporarily concentrating power in the executive branch (the Cabinet). That requires the power to protect the people and the constitutional order through emergency ordinances, etc. There is a commonly shared international recognition of the legitimate exercise of such emergency powers. They are also articulated in the International Covenant on Human Rights (ICCHR) adopted by the United Nations.

Political parties that look favorably upon amendments should realize that the constitution exists for the Japanese people. They should therefore move forward resolutely with drafting amendment articles in the constitutional review commissions and other forums.