Avoiding the Road to War
Published in Nara Newspaper
(Japan) on 16 May 2014
by Kazuaki Kitaoka (link to original)
(Japan) on 16 May 2014
by Kazuaki Kitaoka (link to original)
Translated from
by Stephanie Sanders.
Edited by Eva Langman.
As if the mindset toward peace and security in our country has done an about-face, the Abe administration is moving toward approval of the right to exercise “collective self-defense.” The thing I always wonder, although it is “collective,” is whether or not, bottom line, both Japan and the United States are at the core of it. It is clear that if the United States strengthens its stance on its Asia focus, and if tensions and conflict between the U.S. and other countries in this region deepen, the Abe administration could also cause Japan to take the plunge into military action.
The first thing that comes to mind with America’s post-World War II conduct in the Asia region is the Vietnam War. At that time, the United States cited not only a request from South Vietnam as the basis for military action against North Vietnam, but also the right to collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and defense obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty.
How did this war end? In the end, the United States lost countless soldiers and barely escaped by the skin of its teeth. Naturally, American films dealing with the Vietnam War still continue to be remembered vividly. It’s worth noting that South Korea also deployed troops in this war. In a negative light, they were “following America blindly.” I think South Korea should also give these things as much consideration as possible.
Looking at Article 51 of the United Nations charter, it says “Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Until now, our country has interpreted the “renunciation of war” referred to in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution as a prohibition on deploying military forces outside of our country’s territory. Because of this, it is considered impossible and unconstitutional for Japan to engage in normal joint defense with regions beyond our own territory. In other words, although the U.N. charter recognizes our “right” to collective self-defense, in reality it is impossible to exercise that right.
Is it OK to alter this interpretation or not? What is the essential issue with changing it?
It’s out of the blue, but I will cite the East Asia Local and Regional Government Congress initiative spearheaded and promoted by our Nara prefecture. The preamble of this assembly’s charter reads, “… The stable prosperity and progress of East Asia is predicated upon enhancing understanding, cooperation and partnership while respecting our diversities, fostered by the history and culture of our respective regions.” Based on this notion, we could set aside international issues, and plan collective self-defense and an Asia security treaty with China, South Korea and North Korea. After all, the keyword is “non-war.”
The first thing that comes to mind with America’s post-World War II conduct in the Asia region is the Vietnam War. At that time, the United States cited not only a request from South Vietnam as the basis for military action against North Vietnam, but also the right to collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and defense obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty.
How did this war end? In the end, the United States lost countless soldiers and barely escaped by the skin of its teeth. Naturally, American films dealing with the Vietnam War still continue to be remembered vividly. It’s worth noting that South Korea also deployed troops in this war. In a negative light, they were “following America blindly.” I think South Korea should also give these things as much consideration as possible.
Looking at Article 51 of the United Nations charter, it says “Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Until now, our country has interpreted the “renunciation of war” referred to in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution as a prohibition on deploying military forces outside of our country’s territory. Because of this, it is considered impossible and unconstitutional for Japan to engage in normal joint defense with regions beyond our own territory. In other words, although the U.N. charter recognizes our “right” to collective self-defense, in reality it is impossible to exercise that right.
Is it OK to alter this interpretation or not? What is the essential issue with changing it?
It’s out of the blue, but I will cite the East Asia Local and Regional Government Congress initiative spearheaded and promoted by our Nara prefecture. The preamble of this assembly’s charter reads, “… The stable prosperity and progress of East Asia is predicated upon enhancing understanding, cooperation and partnership while respecting our diversities, fostered by the history and culture of our respective regions.” Based on this notion, we could set aside international issues, and plan collective self-defense and an Asia security treaty with China, South Korea and North Korea. After all, the keyword is “non-war.”