The Change of Public Opinion toward Article 9

2.2 The Change of Public Opinion toward Article 9

Why did the public opinion change in recent years?

Generally speaking, Japan’s security problem is related to two main factors, hegemonic assurances and anarchic threats.⁴⁵ Generally, the level of Japanese security is deeply affected by the relationship with the United States. Anderson argues that if the United States provides more techniques or weapons to Japan, Japan might reduce their production of security. Aside from the assurance of the ally, anarchic threats also shape the basic direction for Japan’s security production. He suggested that the combination of these two factors lead to specific patterns of Japan’s behaviors.⁴⁶ The two factors were in the suitable levels to create a relatively stable situation for Japan in the past. However, with the rise of China and the increase of uncertainties in this region, Japan is facing relentless pressure nowadays. Scholars believed that the economic constraint made the United States unable to maintain the hegemonic balance.⁴⁷ Furthermore, under this circumstance, Japanese politicians started to consider the possibility of constitutional reform.⁴⁸To be more specific, Japanese politicians attempted to revise the “Peace law”, Article 9.

Unlike the politicians, most of the Japanese people agree with the constitutional amendment, but when it comes to Article 9, most of the people disagree with the change in 2005.⁴⁹ The disagreement is based on the fear of war.⁵⁰ Most of those think that the amendment of the Article 9 would become a “war announcement.” Japan has been a Pacifist country since World War II. Many believe that the change of Article 9 would put an end to postwar pacifism.⁵¹ This kind of thoughts can infer that most of the Japanese are not willing to link their country image towards “war”. To be more

45. Anderson, Nicholas D. “Anarchic Threats and Hegemonic Assurances: Japan’s Security Production in the Postwar Era.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 17, no. 1 (2016): 101-35.

doi:10.1093/irap/lcw005.

46. Ibid.

47. Mercado, Orlando S. “PKO Law, Japan’s Constitution and the Asian Fear.” World Bull 1411, no. 2 (1998).

48. Panton, Michael A. “Politics, Practice and Pacifism: Revising Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.”

49. Midford, Paul. Rethinking Japanese Public Opinion and Security: From Pacifism to Realism?

50. Ibid.

51. “Is Japan Abandoning Its Pacifism?” BBC News. (September 23, 2015.) (Accessed December 14, 2017.) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34278846.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

specific, they do not want to be involved in conflicts. Although Prime Minister Abe stated that the law is just a broader interpretation of the constitution, opponents said the related act is “war bills.” Protests were held in several districts, ever since the law has bypassed in 2014. The public opinions were against with the decision.

However, the public opinion has been changing over the past years. According to the survey conducted by several Medias in recent years, more and more people no longer insisted to maintain Article 9. In spite of the different forms of changing Article 9, the public seems to share a consensus: revising the constitution has its necessity. The following survey was conducted by NHK in July, 2015. This is the only survey dug into why the people agree with the revision of Article 9. The survey asked the respondents to cite reasons why they agreed to the constitutional amendment.

Answers can be categorized into four reasons: (a) the definition of the Self-Defense Force (57%) (b) Peacekeeping Operation in international society (24%) and (c) The clarification of giving up military force(8%)(d) Oversea military operation(7%).⁵² I will explain more about the above four selective options in the following paragraph.

(a) The definition of the Self-Defense Force

The establishment of the Self-Defense Force resulted from the breakout of the Korean War. The United States was urgent to find a temporary military base in Asia;

Japan became the best choice. Despite the fact that the Self-Defense Force was established under the approval of Western Countries, the existence of the Self-Defense Force itself violated Article 9. Judging from the function of the Self-Self-Defense Force, it is a military force. People have been asking for the constitutional explanation for decades, some of the people consider the reinterpretation as defining the position of the Self-Defense Force.

52. Aramaki, Ma, and Miki Masaki. “Pros and Cons for Votes against the Constitutional Amendment.”

NHK Broadcasting Research and Survey, (2015.) (荒牧, 央, and みき 政木. "賛否が拮抗する憲法改 正." NHK 放送研究と調查.)

‧

(b) PKO in International Society

Japan’s first actual PKO activity can trace back to 1990s. The Persian Gulf crisis in 1990 and the Gulf War were the two challenges to regional peace and international security after the end of Cold War. Due to the constraint of the constitution, Japanese government drafted the UN Peace Cooperation Bill, but failed to pass it. At the end, Japan was too late to take part in the war.⁵³ Over the past decades, Japan’s contribution to PKO is financial support. According to the statistics, Japan is the second contributors to UN peacekeeping budget.⁵⁴ The case of South Sudan is the first time; Japanese government dispatched the SDF to cooperate with foreign military troops after the reinterpretation of the constitution. Some of the people think that the reinterpretation is not enough to legitimize the action of the SDF in PKO activities. In order to simplify the procedure of attending PKO event, Article 9 should revise.

(c) The clarification of giving up military force

Contrary to renew the definition of the Self-Defense Force, some of the people suggest that Japan should stick to the original concept of Article 9, which is renouncing war. Military forces should never be established, so does the Self-Defense Force. The clarification should prevent the existence of any military forces.

(d) Oversea military operation

Japan is strictly forbidden from attacking foreign countries, but some of the supporters believed that Japan should proactively attack countries with potential threat. To enhance their own military capability when having oversea operation, the constraint of constitution might force the Japanese army hardly react immediately.

This might put the army at a disadvantage.

53. Watanabe, Kōji. “Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.” In Humanitarian Intervention the Evolving Asian Debate, 33-56. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, (2003.)

54. “Top 10 Financial Contributors to UN Peacekeeping Budget (Dec 2015) | Global Peace Operations Review.” Global Peace Operations Review Thematic Essays. (December 10, 2015.) (Accessed January 05, 2018).

http://peaceoperationsreview.org/infographic/top-10-financial-contributors-to-un-peacekeeping-budget/.

‧

The survey indicated that, most of the Japanese people think that the definition of the SDF should be clarified. Opinions from the survey are mostly related to the actual function of the SDF. To conclude, people who agree with the constitutional amendment seek for the clarification and the legitimacy of the SDF. Meanwhile, the opponents still believe that the revision of the constitution would drag Japan into conflicts or war. ⁵⁵