Japan Party OKs Draft of Constitution
By MARI YAMAGUCHI,
Associated Press Writer
Fri Oct 28, 2:45 PM ET

"TOKYO - The ruling party on Friday approved its final draft of a proposed revision of
Japan's pacifist constitution that would drop a clause outlawing war and give the military
a greater role in international security, officials said.
Article 9 of Japan's current constitution — drafted by U.S. occupation forces and
unchanged since 1947 — bars the use of military force in settling international disputes.

It also prohibits maintaining a military for warfare, though the Japanese government
has interpreted that to mean the nation can have armed troops to protect itself,
allowing the existence of its 240,000-strong Self-Defense Forces.
The Liberal Democratic Party's final draft cuts the "no war" clause from Article 9, and
outlines an expanded role for the military.

In the approved draft, released on the party's Web site, the section currently titled
"Renouncing War" will be renamed "National Security.""
article

__________________

It's nice to have a pacifist constitution but in the real world of military threats, you need to have a military to defend yourself.

__________________
"Every idea is wrong when it refuses to admit that it might not also be right."

I could not agree more. It is also nice to note that a former enemy, is now quite a good ally.

Bart

__________________
Bart Hook
Administrator
Email

Why shouldn't they be great allies? If you think about it, they are better off now then they were prior to World War 2. The countries of the allied forces helped them rebuild their industries. One in particular, Automotive, they took and improved on. That is why Japanese auto imports are higher then virtually any country in the world. They aren't hurting at all from trade with the USA.

__________________

Of the top 31 vehicles rated best in reliability, 29 were Japanese.

Bart

__________________
Bart Hook
Administrator
Email

Japan already had a national security force to help "defend them"..... this isn't really about the military.

what's important to note, is the reconnection of their (militaristic) shinto religious ceremonies with their State gov't and legitimate military again.

Here's a bit of commentary about what this change signifies:
*****************

"But in reading a recent special issue of Gendai shisô (Contemporary Thought) on
Yasukuni, the first article addresses another reason why the shrine is (or should be)
so controversial within Japan itself.
Before and during the war, the shrine was the key institution in the creation and
sustenance of State Shinto as the obligatory, coercive religion of the Japanese state.
Commoner Japanese were taught in school and elsewhere that the greatest good they
could achieve was to die for the emperor in battle, the reward for which merit would
be enshrinement as a "nation-protecting god" at Yasukuni. This raising of self-sacrifice
in war for the emperor to the level of highest value is often understood to be one of
the most important elements in the establishment of agressive militarism in Japan.

When the Americans sought a socio-political-cultural reform of Japan after the war,
a reform which was meant to ensure that Japan would not become a militarist society
again, one of their key goals was to enforce the principle of separation of church and
state. So the postwar constitution establishes the principle in unambiguous terms and
Yasukuni shrine was allowed to survive as a private religious organization. In the
domestic context, the enshrinement of the Class-A war criminals as gods is considered
unfortunate, but the more important principle is that the State and the Shrine must
have no official connection whatsoever. Under the principle of freedom of worship, in
other words, the shrine can do whatever it wants in terms of worship, but any time
any representative of the State (whether an individual or an organ thereof) engages
with the Shrine in an official capacity, a founding principle of the postwar bulwark
against the return of prewar militarist fascism is violated. That, for Japanese critics, is
the core issue." blog

__________________

I don't think Japan's suddenly gonna do a 180 after being pacifist for 60 years. They're just worried about NK and other security threats, so they have changed the constitution a little bit. Don't get me wrong, it's unfortunate that they can't keep it the way it was but as a sovereign country you must keep your options open...

__________________
"Every idea is wrong when it refuses to admit that it might not also be right."

After 60 years the old pre-WWII way of imperialistic thinking in Japan is pretty much dead. I don't blame Japan one bit for reinstating military powers. For 60 years it's been pretty much relying on allies for protection. It's no secret that there is no love between Japan and NK..or even China and Vietnam for that matter. I think the move will better enable the military to defend the country.

__________________

Japan has a pretty descent navy.

__________________
Negative, I am a meat Popsicle.

they have superb detection technologies as well.

__________________

I think you/liberals are more cynical than conservatives on many things. I don't know, I just trust Japan's judgement...

__________________
"Every idea is wrong when it refuses to admit that it might not also be right."