Madam, - I note with some concern that some of the media reporting following the passing of the referendum law in Japan might give readers the erroneous impression that the current Japanese government is trying to "abolish Japan's pacifist stance" by changing the Constitution. In the interests of providing Irish readers with a clear understanding of the facts underlying the question of constitutional revision, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the following three points.
1. The Japanese constitution has never been revised since it was promulgated 60 years ago. What is notable is that throughout the six decades Japan has simply lacked a procedural law governing the revision of its constitution. The constitution itself certainly provides that a motion proposing it requires approval by a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament (the Diet), followed by a majority in a national referendum. However, the Constitution has no further specific procedure and leaves it to laws and regulations. Therefore, the specifics required for a national referendum, such as who is eligible to vote, the length of the campaigning period prior to the referendum, have never been established.
As a country committed to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, the current government, after lengthy debate, took measures to fill this legal gap through the enactment of a national referendum law. The law will provide the legal framework essential before any debate on the question of whether the constitution should be amended or not can take place. Whether you are for or against any possible constitutional amendments, it makes perfect sense for the Japanese government to ensure that the current absence of procedural law is filled.
As the national referendum law in question will take effect in three years' time, there is no knowing at this juncture when the constitution will actually be revised, if at all.
2. Another major misconception is that constitutional revision in itself will lead to the "abolition of Japan's pacifist stance".
The debate about the revision is not solely concerned with Article 9. Ireland itself has, according to changes in circumstances, revised its Constitution on numerous occasions. Japan should be allowed to do the same. In the 60 years since the second World War, Japan has changed from being a defeated and ravaged country into the world's second largest economy. In that time dramatic changes in the international situation have also occurred and there is an increasingly strong opinion that there should be a debate, at least, about revising the different articles of the Constitution that was enacted under the direction of the occupation forces 60 years ago and have never been revised at all since. There is nothing odd about such an opinion.
3. The argument that the revision of Article 9 will result in the abolition of Japan's pacifist stance is also a gross misconception. Article 9 provides that (a) the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes; and (b) in order to achieve such purposes, land, sea and air forces as well as other war potential will never be maintained. The Japanese government's established position is that this does not preclude Japan from exercising the right of individual self-defence in the event of an armed attack against itself and from maintaining forces necessary to exercise such right or participate in UN peacekeeping efforts.
However, there have been arguments that a literal interpretation of Article 9 should hold the existence of such self-defence forces or their international peacekeeping activities as simply unconstitutional, and even under the government's interpretation, the right to "collective" self-defence is denied and there are restrictions on the type of activities the Japanese self-defence forces personnel can engage in, even in UN-mandated peacekeeping operations. The argument that Article 9 should be reviewed and revised comes from the concern that the right to self-defence should be clearly established and that Japanese contributions to international efforts for keeping and restoring peace should be expressly sanctioned.
There is no argument that Japan should abandon the pacifist stance. Even in the draft constitution prepared by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, the existing Article 9, Paragraph 1, which provides the renunciation of war and the prohibition of the use of force as means to settle international disputes and is therefore considered as the fundamental principle of pacifism of the constitution, is kept intact. I cannot stress this point enough.
Furthermore, Japan's pacifist position has been firmly maintained in practice for over 60 years. Japan has actively participated over the past 15 years in UN peacekeeping operations all over the world, including Cambodia, Mozambique, the Golan Heights and Rwanda. Japan's active participation in such international peacekeeping has made great contributions to international peace and has been widely praised. - Yours, etc,
KEIICHI HAYASHI, Ambassador of Japan, Dublin.