The US Has Long Supported Japan's Constitutional Revision—Here's Why

このページを日本語で読む

Momentum for constitutional revision in Japan is picking up once again. As the debate spreads in various directions, one thing is strangely absent from the discussion: the United States' stance.

Of course, Japan's constitution is ultimately Japan's own decision to make. But Japan's constitution was made in America. And the gap it left in Japan's defense posture has since been filled by the deterrent power of US forces under the Japan-US alliance. That's why understanding how the US views Japan's constitution is essential to considering what a new constitution should look like.

A Bipartisan, Cross-Ideological Consensus

About 40 years ago, I interviewed Charles Kades, the former US Army colonel who served as the chief architect of Japan's constitution, in detail about the actual process under the American occupation. Since then, I have continuously tracked US attitudes and policy toward Japan's constitution from Washington.

Drawing on that experience, the current US view can be summarized as follows: a bipartisan consensus—spanning Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike—hopes that Japan will revise its current constitution and resolve its international anomaly on security matters.

The prevailing view is that Japan becoming a "normal" country in terms of defense would also strengthen the Japan-US alliance. However, expressing that view at the government level risks appearing to interfere in Japan's internal affairs, so officials refrain from doing so.

Yet candid and sharp views have been expressed on the American side in private circles. The first policy report calling directly for constitutional revision in Japan was published in Washington in June 1992.

It was a policy proposal titled "Reshaping the National Spirit of Japan: How Washington Can Help Create a More Responsible Japan," from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank close to the George H.W. Bush administration at the time.

A Proposal Born of 'Checkbook Diplomacy'

The year before, a US-led multinational coalition of more than 30 countries had deployed in response to Iraq's military occupation of Kuwait. Citing constitutional constraints, Japan sent no service members and instead provided massive financial contributions, drawing criticism as "checkbook diplomacy."

The Heritage Foundation's proposal, made during that period, could be summarized as follows:

Japan's constitution was "the work of General Douglas MacArthur" and was "imposed from the outside." The Japanese people accepted it as is, thereby giving up the opportunity to debate the fundamentals of their own nation's identity themselves. Constitutional revision would spark that very debate among the Japanese people.

The constitution's "idealistic message that all war is wrong" makes Japan an exception worldwide, and as a result, Japan has become unable to engage responsibly with realities in the outside world that involve the use of force. Consequently, the Japanese people have come to view themselves as an exception in the world.

The report goes so far as to argue that repealing Article 9 "would shatter the constitutionally-sanctioned fantasy that all war is wrong," which it says would encourage the kind of political debate over military action that serves as a democratic safeguard against aggression.

A View That Hasn't Changed in Three Decades

The reason for revisiting this proposal more than 30 years later is that the US view of Japan's constitution has not fundamentally changed since then.

For example, the bipartisan US "Armitage-Nye" report on Japan-US relations has, across roughly six installments spanning more than two decades through 2024. It consistently recommended constitutional revision or reinterpretation to enable Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense.

The Trump administration has also made no secret of its view, at least unofficially, that constitutional revision would be desirable for deepening the Japan-US alliance. It would only be natural for Japan's own debate over constitutional revision to take this US perspective into account.