Editorial
Pondering constitutional reform and Japan-U.S. security pact must go hand-in-hand
Let us take this chance on Constitution Day to think about the Constitution -- which in addition to the document we commonly talk about, also refers to a nation's makeup or nature -- and the Japan-U.S. security arrangement.
When the Japanese Instrument of Surrender marking Japan's capitulation in World War II was signed on the USS Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945, an American flag that had flown on Commodore Matthew Perry's black ship nearly a century earlier was put on display. The gunboat diplomacy that had forced late-Edo Japan to open its borders was a U.S. success story, and using the antique flag for dramatic effect was a move typical of General Douglas MacArthur.
The U.S. military, which occupied Japan following its surrender, wielded overwhelming power and went on to institute major reforms in the country. Some Japanese referred to this as the second opening of Japan, attesting to the relief with which many war-weary Japanese welcomed the new Constitution and other occupation authority-led reforms.
Escalation of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and the Korean War in particular had an enormous impact on the peace of Japan. In 1951, Japan accepted the San Francisco Peace Treaty and its security arrangement with the U.S. as a single package, while also maintaining Article 9 of the Constitution that prohibited acts of war by the state. A year later, Japan regained independence.
At the time, the continued presence of the U.S. military had also been requested by Japan. In an essay written soon after the peace treaty was signed, John Foster Dulles, a U.S. official who had handled peace negotiations with Japan, explained that the need had risen for Japan to be actively engaged as a member of collective security arrangements for the Pacific region. Considering international circumstances at the time, it was unavoidable for the U.S. to see Japan as a base for its military missions on the Korean Peninsula. Criticism that this was a sign of Japan's subordination to the U.S. intensified among Japanese reformers, making Japan's relationship with the U.S. a major point of contention in post-war Japanese politics.
What eventually won public support was the conservative mainstream line represented by Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, who placed priority on economic development while spending little on defense. Japan has since created a national "constitution" shaped by the inseparable Constitution and Japan-U.S. security arrangement. While the two may seem incompatible with each other, the fact that the security arrangement fills in for the Japanese "military" has allowed for the preservation of Article 9.
Japanese administrations, however, have not been upfront about the realities of the Japan-U.S. security arrangement. For example, have any administrations provided the public with a thorough explanation about why there is a U.S. military presence in Japan (besides defense reasons), and in particular about why there are high concentrations of bases in Okinawa? Have any administrations offered convincing statements about the relationship between the nuclear umbrella and the three non-nuclear principles?
As the turmoil over Futenma has demonstrated, leaving Okinawa to bear an excessive burden endangers the maintenance of the Japan-U.S. alliance itself. We must take this opportunity to communicate Japan's intentions regarding the alignment and burden of U.S. bases in Japan to the U.S.; to begin creating a vision that will reduce burdens in the future.
We have been calling for a discussion on the Constitution. Our position is one that upholds the primary values of the current Constitution while furthering debate on an even better Constitution that complements the current state of affairs.
A national referendum law will go into effect on May 18. According to a Mainichi public opinion poll, 50 percent look forward to constitutional reform, while 48 percent do not. Perhaps we should see the results as revealing a public that is not intent on hastily bringing about change in the Constitution, but one that is asking for careful deliberation on the kind of reform that is necessary. It is time to engage in a discussion about the Constitution to draw up what sort of national "constitution" it is we're seeking.
Click here for the original Japanese story
(Mainichi Japan) May 3, 2010