[This very article is the extension of the
article under the same title published on 4 June in Bogota Free Planet and
Columbia Fox and on June 10 Bogota Free Planet Newspaper Online, South America,
on 9 June in Dhaka Courier and on 10 June 2016 in Green Watch Dhaka,
Bangladesh]
History repeats itself truth it is but truer
is that ‘not in same line and tune with the past’. No coming back/reappearance,
whether it is comfortable or not, is free from deductions, additions,
readjustments, accommodations and compulsions arising necessarily from time,
space and dimension. Human characters are so diverse, peculiar and opaque those
tend us to draw a deduction/induction as well ‘Right or wrong cannot be defined
and determined sans cause and effect mostly rooted in the past.’ History bears
testimony ‘Had there been no Treaty of Versailles signed on 28 June 1919 ending
war between Germany and Allied Powers, there could probably have no Adolf Hitler’.
Every so often even an issue such as existence of a big neighbor having matching
a gesture and exposure may give birth to a sense of serious insecurity to a neighbor,
big or small. Under such compelling circumstances, such neighbor(s) at times
finds no option but to go for coining, strengthening, consolidating and
safeguarding self-defense designs and implementation, collective or not. If the
state carries a legacy of imperial power colored with war-atrocities and
annihilation at large and again stands powerful economically and
technologically then what next awaits her. Today’s Japan is extremely faced
with this very reality in the overall contests of national, regional and global
landscapes. This very article is the extension of the article under the same
title
Japan, leading pre-second world war thespian
but post-second world war impotent power, is staging a come-back in the
political firmaments of Asia with all its tastes, colors, velocity and
comprehensiveness. Japan, an island nation in the Pacific Ocean in East Asia,
aslo termed as a trading nation, is currently holding the standing and status
of world third economic power even having negligible natural resources. Japanese
post-war economic miracle is a myth indeed. The economy of Japan is the third largest in the world by nominal GDP, the fourth
largest by purchasing power parity and is the world's second largest developed economy.
According to the International Monetary Fund, the country's per capita GDP
(PPP) was at $36,899, the 22nd-highest in 2013.
Also truth is that she is lagging behind from
defense perspectives. Question is should Japan at this time as well is ready
for her sway over such security issues”. Can economically developed but
militarily weak Japan play befitting role in today’s context? Not at all. If
so, does SDF (Self-defense Forces) law in 1954 contradict article 9 in the
constitution of Japan? Answer unfurls the actuality whether SDF is wall or not
depends upon the overall interpretations of article 9 in the constitution in the
light of overall threats, security, opportunities, options and dilemmas emanating
from bi-lateral, regional and global landscapes, present and/or future. Keeping
in mind the conflicting stands of pacifists,
mercantilist, normalists and
nationalists here the simplest asking is who shall decide it? Is it Parliament(Article 96 of the
Constitution provides that an amendment to the Constitution can only be made by
a two-thirds affirmative vote in both houses of the Diet and with ratification by
a majority of the electorate) or the Supreme
Court?
Shinzo Abe administration under the ray of
Abe doctrine, unlike Yoshida Doctrine (1951) named after Prime Minister
Yoshida, Fukuda Doctrine (1977) following the name of Prime Minister Fukuda and
Koizumi Doctrine (christened by the premier’s aides, was based on Koizumi
Junichiro’s January 14, 2002 speech in Singapore) originated from the name of
Prime Minister Koizumi Junchiro, contends that, as article 9, paragraph 1 does
not repudiate the state’s inherent right of self-defense, generating standing
forces for the purpose of self-defense does not create the “war potential”
barred by paragraph 2 of article
9. Abe doctrine explains “war potential” as forces much greater than
those forces marginally required for self-defense. So, the SDF is not “war”
potential, but “self-defense” potential. Such an interpretation did not
appear meteorically. This owes to a wide-ranging history for the
government’s interpretation in line with nationalistic spirit and profound
emotions speaking and heralding of ‘Japan dream’.
At the backdrop of the US–Japan Mutual
Defense Assistance Agreement (MSA Agreement), which was contracted on March 8,
1954, and entered into force on May 1, 1954, no option was left for Japan but to
strengthen its defense capabilities. To meet with it, SDF law was passed
in 1954. At a Budget Committee meeting on December 21, 1954, the Cabinet
answered that the SDF was outside the scope of the “war potential” referenced
in article 9, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, because the right of
self-defense was not prohibited by article 9. Possession of the necessary
force to defend Japan was therefore not prohibited by the Constitution. The
next day, at the same committee meeting, the Cabinet expressed its official
interpretation of the Constitution as follows:
The Constitution did not deny the
self-defense right; Japan renounced war, but did not renounce the right to
struggle in order to defend itself;
Establishment of the SDF is not against the
Constitution because SDF’s mission is self-defense and its ability is limited
to necessary and adequate levels of self-defense.
Although the government was able to establish
the SDF, Japan’s right of self-defense is limited because of the constitutional
restriction. The government stated in 1954 that there are three
requirements that must be met in order to use the right of self-defense: (1)
there is a present and wrongful danger of invasion to Japan; (2) no other
appropriate measures exist to defend Japan; and (3) the use of force to defend
Japan is limited to the extent only minimally necessary. Therefore, Japan
adopted an exclusively defense-oriented policy. The Cabinet has changed
its members frequently, but has not changed its interpretation of article 9
with regard to the right of self-defense.
Interestingly enough, SDF is being
strengthened gradually under the caps of more and more new provisions and
necessities engulfing emphatically PKO Law in 1992, the Law Concerning
Cooperation for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Other Operations
(PKO Law), which enabled the dispatch of the SDF overseas, Guidelines and Law Concerning
Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, Antiterrorism Special Measures
Law, Three War-Contingency Laws in 2003, Iraq Special Measures
Law, Seven Contingency Laws in 2004 and later setting up of National Security Council. She struck
security pacts with Australia and India in 2007 and 2008. Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) is
a regular participant in RIMPAC,
the Rim of the Pacific Exercise,
is the world's largest international maritime warfare exercise. US-Japan military alliance is
still a cornerstone of Japan’s foreign policy. One
of the G4 nations seeking permanent membership in the UN Security Council, Japan has
territorial disputes with Russia, South Korea, China and North Korea and recent
Chinese defense exercises in the Pacific and Indian Oceans has furthered
Japan’s logic to stand militarily for defensive purposes. The cabinet of
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved a record 5.05 trillion yen ($41.4
billion) defense budget for fiscal year 2016/2017 and slightly below the 5.09
trillion yen requested by Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MOD), The Japan
Times reports. This marks the fourth consecutive rise in defense spending since
Shinzo Abe assumed office in December 2012(http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/japan-approves-record-defense-budget/).
Kyle Mizokami, USNI News contributor wrote
“Politically, Abe’s security agenda is designed to get Japan more involved in
the world, and more capable of being a partner operating with the United
States,”
“Japan’s
de facto military, the Self-Defense Forces, would be able to reciprocate
American efforts to defend Japan. Abe is also concentrating on increasing SDF
interoperability with U.S. forces.”
US accept
as true that 21st century belongs to Asia and strategic importance
of Indian Ocean is beyond question. Containment of China is further concern
since she is moving very fast economically and militarily with Silk Road,
string of pearls and China Dream as ‘ignited ethos’ making geo-politics convoluted.
Moreover, China’s new approaches to its foreign policy to stand by those who
are in need referring in particular the neighbors both ideologically and geographically
are clear indications of her re-thought on the past limitations and closed-door
policy. It is China that raises head meaningfully in the uni-polar world led by
USA. Therefore, concerted efforts against communist China are unavoidable and
here Japan’s role is big one. But Japan under article 9 is not matching at all.
Rather strong Japan is the only answer and option. And irony of the fate
unfolds USA now understand it more pragmatically and mathematically than
anybody else.
Japanese leaders and statesmen of diverse
backgrounds, natures and dimensions remained water-tight, confused and
bewildered for a long since so many minds and intelligences generated so many
opinions and options mostly also divergent in nature and approach. Even some hastened
to take it to the Supreme Court as well. Curiously enough, Unlike the Supreme
Court of Bangladesh, here Supreme Court of Japan was restrained enough to deal
with such hottest politico-constitutional issue. Supreme Court did not slip to
identify the line of demarcation between political domain and judicial domain.
It asserted, affirmed and confirmed that ‘political matter(s) should be handled
politically by people’s representatives, Diet, since it is their domain’. In
doing so, Supreme Court has taken resort to many doctrines such as ‘state
governance’, ‘political domain’ and so on. The state governance theory was chosen
and developed among Japanese scholars under the postwar Constitution by
referring to the French acte
de gouvernement, German Regierungsakt, and United
States political-question theory, which prefer and refer to the political
branches of government (the executive and legislative branches) for the
resolution of certain disputes.
Stands of the Supreme Court of Japan about
the interpretation, interpreter and standing of article 9 and SDF in the
ongoing constitution advanced and are still advancing a reality of Japan’s
staging a come-back more sharply and evocatively. It gives the impression that
the Japanese people would like to secure and ensure Japan’s security upholding
the messages of the SDF and the Japan-US security agreements whether or not
there is a constitutional problem. Should not Diet come forward to do what
is needed for Japan of today and tomorrow?
Intent on revamping Japan's
post-World War II foreign and defence policy, Abe, in his In his state of union
address to the
Japanese parliament (Diet) on 12 February 2015, called for the revision of the
Japanese pacifist constitution, which bars the Asian powerhouse from developing
a standing army and an offensive military posture.
Abe has described the amendment of
Japan's highest legal document, imposed under US occupation, as the
"biggest reform since the end of the war".
In an impassioned address before
Japanese parliamentarians, Abe called upon his compatriots to revisit their
deeply pacifist instincts, a legacy of World War II, and reimagine a more
globally proactive Japan.
In his most emotional speech yet,
Abe declared: "People of Japan, be confident... Isn't it time to hold deep
debate about revising the constitution? For the future of Japan, shouldn't we
accomplish in this parliament the biggest reform since the end of the
war?"
So far, there is restricted signal that he will be able to secure the
two-thirds majorities in both the upper and lower houses of the Japanese
parliament to amend war-renouncing provisions (ie, Article 9) of the
constitution. Strategic parliamentary allies such as the New Komeito party, as
well as certain members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, have
continuously opposed any overt revision of the constitution. There is no
denying the fact that today or tomorrow Japan shall be in a position to win the
most coveted parliamentary play since she is also fighting for increasing permanent
seats in the UN Security Council so that she shall have a one without fail. On
all counts, one should recall from pragmatic standpoints that this Japan is not
standing now on the very classical definitions and interpretations of Article 9
of her Constitution. She has to be sure deviated and advanced a lot. Hardly
there is any black hole in her dream in this regard.
Pursuing asking is what type of Japan is emerging as a rejuvenated power?
Definitely it will not be the recurrence of the past one. World would like to
see a Japan full of potency, democratic wheels, optimism and encouraging nous
of creations and roles coupled with broad-based vision of strengthening the
multi-facets baskets of ODA(It is the world's fifth largest donor donating
US$9.2 billion in 2014). Japan having a pro-active mood and mode of
neighborhood and cooperation, mutual and/or collective, has, speaking in the
superlatives, every opportunity and leap forward to stand by Asia in particular
to radiate and pass her brilliance, genius and
flavor under the circumstances, compelling or not. Let Abe doctrine
under his kinetic, visionary and overhauling leadership act to suit the very
purpose in this widely known ‘Land of Rising Sun’.
In conclusion, Japan is a very good and
trustworthy friend of Bangladesh. Her overall cooperation in our development
sectors from 1972 down to present time need not to be exaggerated. Let
Bangladesh-Japan friendship be a model even in the days ahead of.
[Dr.
Sinha MA Sayeed, Chairman of Leadership Studies Foundation, writer and
columnist, Bangladesh. He can be reached at sinha_sayeed611@yahoo.com].
No comments:
Post a Comment