hankyoreh

By Jung Nam-ku, Tokyo correspondent and Park Byong-su, staff reporter
A significant change in Tokyo’s official position on collective self-defense may be afoot after a committee under the prime minister’s office drafted a reform calling for the amendment of the Constitutional interpretation that permits it.
The conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has consistently made calls for a change in the interpretation or amendment of the Constitution along these lines, but the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has been reluctant to do so. The fact that a government committee is now echoing the LDP calls three years after the DJP took office hints strongly that a change could be in the offing.
There were signs in the past of a possible change in the DJP’s stance. Party policy research committee chairman Seiji Maehara previously served as foreign minister in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, during which time he repeatedly voiced the view that the constitutional interpretation of the right to collective self-defense should be reexamined.
Current Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said in February that the Cabinet would not be changing the interpretation, but added that matter needed to be discussed further because of differing opinions within the DJP. He went a step farther last month by unexpectedly hiring as defense minister Satoshi Morimoto, a professor at Takushoku University who has made calls for the use of collective self-defense rights to be allowed.
These actions by the DJP fall in line with a recent foreign affairs focus on deepening Japan’s alliance with the United States. Washington has been calling on Japan to play an active role in Northeast Asian defense ever since the Cold War era system broke apart in the 1990s. These demands are known to have intensified in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. In May 2010, the US Congressional Research Service issued a report in which it said the interpretation holding that the Japanese Constitution bans participation in collective self-defense was hampering closer national security cooperation with the US.
In a 2010 defense white paper, the DJP administration indicated a change in course away from its previous reluctance to use military force, toward a more active approach based on the concept of “dynamic defense.” This decision, along with an amendment of its three principles on arms exports, went some way toward answering the US’s requests.
The LDP has been even more aggressive. In addition to openly calling for amendment of the Constitution to establish a national armed force and codify the right to collective self-defense, it also drafted basic security guarantee legislation in April that would permit the exercise of collective self-defense rights even without an amendment. The plan is to submit the legislation to the Diet if the party regains power.
In addition to pressure from conservatives, another factor behind the change in tack from the DJP is a major shift in public opinion away from its previously negative attitude toward the exercise of collective self-defense, which was seen as something out of the Cold War era. A 2006 survey by the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper found 49.6% of respondents saying they were in favor of exercising collective self-defense rights. But a joint survey last April by Fuji TV and the Sankei Shimbun found 62% agreed.
Japan‘s interpretation is that while this is the right of all sovereign states, it is deferred by the Constitution in Japan’s case. The absence of this restraint would inevitably mean major changes to the Northeast Asian order. While the country has a relatively small army at 140,000 troops, its 448,000-ton naval vessel is almost three times as big as South Korea’s 180,000-ton one, and it has almost as many air force operations aircrafts, at 430 to South Korea’s 570. Its 2009 defense budget was US$40.9 billion, putting it close to France’s US$42.6 billion. A country that has yet to fully atone for its aggressions during the era of imperialism era is now on its way to becoming a fully-fledged military power.
Meanwhile, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said on July 5 that it was “watching very closely” after the committee report from the prime minister’s office.
Speaking at a regular briefing, deputy spokeswoman Han Hye-jin said, “Before making any statement about this, the government intends to conduct an internal examination on whether we need to state a response or approach.”
Han said the government had determined the report most likely represented the position of the current Japanese administration, since it was released by one of its subcommittees. “We’ll present our position after discussing the matter,” she added.
Analysts took this as a sign that the government is taking the talk in Japan about recognizing collective self-defense rights very seriously.
The government is especially flustered about the issue surfacing at a time when it is already facing heavy flak over the closed-door passage of a General Security Of Military Information Agreement with Japan. Its concern now is the possibility of critics charging that it was mistaken in pushing for the GSOMIA at a time when the Japanese government was issuing a report that could be read as showing the intent to expand the country’s military presence.
　
Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]