There are many variables which the Japanese are considering in the debates about constitutional revision. Recurring questions are the issues of reciprocity and burden- sharing. United States Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage have both said publicly that Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is an obstacle to strengthening the U.S.-Japan alliance.41 Both of these top U.S. diplomats have stated that the issue of constitutional revision is a matter for the Japanese themselves
38 Michael O’Hanlon, “Bold Basing Plan.” Washington Times, 4 April 2004, B3. 39 Sankei (Tokyo), 21 April 2004.
40 Perry and Yoshihara, 167-168.
41 Japan Times, “Article 9 Hindering U.S. Ties, Bid for UNSC Seat: Armitage,” Japan Times Online
[home page on-line]; available from http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/gearticle.pl5?nn20040723a1.htm; Internet; accessed 27 July 2004.
to decide. Furthermore, both have stated that the United States supports Japan’s permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and that there is no linkage between revising Article 9 and UNSC permanent membership.
The Japanese are seriously wrestling with this issue because in many regards they realize there is a linkage. All permanent Security Council members are required to use military force for the good of the international community, something that the Japanese are restricted from doing by their constitution. A remedy to this issue being examined by Ichiro Ozawa of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) is to create a special UN standby force. The DPJ is in favor of constitutional revision, but its views of revision differ from the views of the LDP. Essentially, the DPJ advocates a revision of the constitution in order to allow the JSDF to use force on overseas missions based on UNSC resolutions. A special UN standby force would be the result and would remedy the issue of reciprocity by participating in collective security. An analysis of this option concludes that this course of action is predicated on a viable U.S.-Japan Security Alliance as the cornerstone of Japan’s defense and suggests that Japan would not want to exercise collective defense and make a more reciprocal alliance with the United States.
Another remedy that may gain more attention is reinterpretation. Osaka University postgraduate Professor Kazuya Sakamoto states that “Article 9 of Japan’s constitution only prohibits Japan from using force-or threatening to use force- as a means of settling international disputes. That’s why I see no need to revise the constitution.” Under careful analysis, this “reinterpretation” allows Japan to use force for collective defense, which is recognized by international law to be Japan’s right. This implies however, that the force Japan may use and under what conditions it may be deployed must be thoroughly articulated and possibly made into law.42 In some respects, defining the force and parameters for using force under the existing constitution may provide little change from the status quo.
As the debates progress, it appears that many in Japan aim to internationalize the JSDF in proceeding toward a more reciprocal relationship with both the United States and with the United Nations. To do this, constitutional reinterpretation or revision is
required. Japan also seeks a permanent seat on the UNSC, and to do this many believe they must reinterpret or revise their constitution. Japan’s restrictive constitution handicaps it from projecting the diplomatic and political influence it could have, considering its economic power. These were not objectives during the Cold War, as Japan focused on economic reconstruction under the security blanket of the U.S-Japan Security Alliance. This alliance, however, put Japan in a position where its foreign policy was subordinated to that of another country. Japan realizes that this is in part due to the security alliance not being reciprocal with the United States, as it is between the United States and the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Considering this and the emergence of China and India as economic competitors, Japan wishes to be in a position to influence and participate more effectively in world affairs. As a result, polls indicate that most Japanese citizens and lawmakers believe that a change to the Japanese constitution is required. Along these lines, former Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda connected the deployment of JSDF troops to Iraq in early 2004 with Japan’s national interests. Fukuda stated:
It’s extremely important for Japan to give lots of attention to relations with other countries. Japan, a resourceless island nation, sells good quality products it manufactures using other countries’ resources and then sells to other countries. This has been the major driving force to support the Japanese economy. For this reason, the world needs to be stable and peaceful. We must think hard about whether it is a good thing for Japan to stand on the sidelines. Japan’s responsibility for the international community is being tested. 43
A vexing situation for Japan with respect to constitutional revision is its relationship with the United States. Many in Japan worry that should the constitution be revised to provide for the use of collective defense, the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance would evolve into a more reciprocal alliance by which Japan may be committed to supporting the United States in trouble spots throughout the globe. Furthermore, many believe that not changing the constitution to do more, as Fukuda asserts above, may leave Japan alone when its time of need comes.