 LDP call is for emperor-based war-fighting state -- A critique of LDP Outline for constitutional revision - By Ueda Koichiro The following is the translation of an article entitled "A Call for an Imperial Polity Allowing Japan to Fight Wars", written by Ueda Koichiro, Japanese Communist Party vice chair, and published in the November 27 issue of Akahata: An outline for constitutional revision written by the Liberal Democratic Party Research Commission on the Constitution was submitted to the Commission's drafting committee on November 17. As the Commission's Chair Yasuoka Okiharu said in a lecture in October, the Commission intends to approve the "outline" by late December and shape it into clauses by spring next year. It wants to complete the whole draft of the revised Constitution by September next year and have it approved by the LDP by mid-October (Akahata, October 20). Thus, Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro's instruction that the LDP should be ready to present its draft of constitutional revision in November 2005, when it observes its 50th anniversary, has entered the stage of drafting. This is the first draft revision of the Constitution to be proposed by a political party, and its aim is to change Article 9 to make Japan a country that can fight wars at the urging of the U.S. Bush administration and Japanese business circles. It needs to be thoroughly examined and criticized. I have read the 32-page document. It is an interesting and crucial document that puts forward almost everything the LDP pro-revision forces call for, and discloses the essence, contradictions, lies, and intrigues in their calls. Proposed revision is not limited to Article 9 First of all, the LDP has been obliged to opt to draft a new Constitution instead of seeking to just amend Article 9. This is an expression of a deep contradiction that might result in an uncontrollable controversy between three parties, the Liberal Democratic, Komei, and Democratic parties. Changing Article 9 is the core of the proposed constitutional revision. This is clear from the fact that the attack on Article 9 was started by Richard Armitage (who later became deputy U.S. secretary of state) in his report urging Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense. Unfortunately, however, various opinion polls show that more than 60 percent of those surveyed say they want Article 9 to "remain unchanged." The advocates of constitutional revision will lose in the required national referendum if it is only about Article 9. Knowing the tendency in opinion surveys is that a majority is in favor of constitutional revision if clauses on the rights to the environment or privacy are added to the revision, advocates of constitutional revision have decided to put forward a wide-ranging revision. In that case, the LDP, which maintains its uncompromising antagonism toward the present Japanese Constitution, cannot but draft a new constitution armed with ideological conservatism. The Democratic Party of Japan has published an "interim report" on the Constitution with the subtitle: In the quest of a new constitution in the age of globalization and information." All these developments suggest that the first stage of the parliamentary discussion of constitutional revision is likely to deal with ideological and legal aspects of all clauses with a view to making a new Constitution while focusing on Article 9. Deceptive arguments to include the right of collective self-defense in the Constitution Secondly, in dealing with Article 9, the LDP plans to rearrange it in two sections, "Pacifism and internationalism" (Section 4) and "National emergency and armed forces for self-defense" (Section 8). It was appropriate that Akahata's editorial of November 20 entitled "Destroying democracy and peace" criticized the draft as the worst proposal to allow the Self-Defense Forces to exercise the right of collective self-defense and to use force by uncritically following the U.S. forces in the name of "international contribution" acceding to the demand of the U.S. government and Japan's business circles. The method, however, is deceptive in that this is not explicitly written in the texts of the articles. Their true intention appears for the first time in a footnote on page 13 in Part One on pacifism, in the paragraphs concerning the renunciation of war. It states as follows: "The use of force in self-defense (which reasonably includes both individual and collective self-defense) or as part of international contribution (maintaining or building international peace) shall not be prohibited." "A straightforward explanation of this article based on the above definition is that it clearly stands for the right of a 'limited (collective) self-defense." How deceptive it is for the "outline" to state this issue only in the footnotes of the article! Section 8 on "national emergencies" comprises three components: "Defense", "public security", and "disasters". "Emergencies concerning public security" include a situation arising from a major terrorist attack or other attacks. In each case, the prime minister can issue a decree that will restrict the fundamental civil rights and freedom. This is nothing but an application of an emergency legislation to the Constitution. Denial of modern constitution that restrains state power Thirdly, the LDP plan stands for the denial of constitutionalism under which the people can restrict state power. The LDP wants a constitution that will allow the government to control the people. Modern constitutions that have been developed in Britain and France exist as the supreme and fundamental law of the nation that restrain and regulate the state power by preventing it from committing to a unilateral despotic government, according to "The Annoted Constitution of Japan" published by the Jurisprudence Society. The Constitution's Article 99 provides that "The Emperor or the Regent as well as Ministers of State, members of the Diet, judges, and all other public officials" have "the obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution." This is rooted in the essential nature of modern constitutions. However, the LDP plan calls for adding a second paragraph to Article 99 to make clear that the people have the responsibility to respect and defend the new constitution. If the LDP plan is adopted as the new Japanese Constitution, opposition to reactionary and militaristic provisions will be accused of violating this duty to respect and defend the Constitution. Look at the individual provisions of the LDP plan. In stark contrast to the present constitutional provisions, the LDP plan urges the public to accept many new duties and responsibilities, such as to "defend national independence and security, share social burdens, including social services, cultivate patriotism, ensure environmental protection, observe international treaties and laws," and accept controlling their basic rights and freedoms in case of state emergencies, namely, restricting their fundamental rights and freedoms. Concerning social welfare, the Constitution's Article 25 states in the first paragraph, "All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living," which has a forerunning role in the world in that it clarified the need to guarantee the right to live. The second paragraph advocates that "In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health." Contrary to this, the LDP plan argues that the people must pay for social services, while mentioning nothing about the responsibility of the state. Isn't this a flagrant attempt to turn the Constitution upside down? Aim of reviving prewar-like nationalism uttered Fourthly, the LDP plan is a manifestation of its nationalism with its calls for a reactionary plan to reinstate the emperor as the head of state, similar to the regime under the old Meiji Constitution. How anachronistic this is! The "Points of Arguments" the LDP published in June concerning the constitutional revision states: "The new Constitution must be based on the values peculiar to Japan and deeply rooted to its history, tradition, and culture, as well as morals and sound common sense that had long been maintained by the Japanese people and ignored at the time when the present Constitution was established as a result of giving priority to occupation policy." The LDP plan in its footnote underlines that it primarily focused on the need to establish a new Japanese constitution that will embody an "ideal regime of the nation." Another footnote concerning the general rule in Section 1 explains that the "ideal regime of our nation" means an "emperor system as a symbol of the 'ideal regime of our nation'." The plan in Section 2 concerning the "system of the emperor as symbol" maintains that the emperor shall be the "head of state," statin, "The emperor shall be the head of state and symbol of the history, tradition, and culture of the state of Japan, as well as the symbol of unity of the Japanese people." Generally, "the head of state" is regarded as "leader of a nation, and is part of a state organization chiefly qualified to represent the state in international relations, according to the "Japanese Constitution" written by Constitution scholar Miyazawa Toshiyoshi. Therefore, it is clear that the LDP plan calls for raising and strengthening the emperor's status and powers, while leaving the provision "he shall not have powers related to government" intact. Thus, the LDP plan declares that the "foremost element" of the present constitutional plan is to give the emperor absolute power as an explicit expression of the "ideal regime of our nation" as it was under the Meiji Constitution. The daily Mainichi Shimbun editorial of November 21, entitled "It gives nothing to inspire us" was very interesting. It said, "The LDP plan offers nothing to make us excited about revising the Constitution. It rather sounds a kind of timeworn reminiscence...It is far from a plan that seizes people's hearts." Criticisms are arising from other Asian countries. We should be on the offensive to criticize the LDP plan that calls for revising the Constitution to establish an emperor system and make Japan a "war-fighting nation" and further develop arguments in defense of the Constitution, in particular its Article 9 in a way that will attract the public. (end) |