Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Revising the article 9

Just a quick look at the point of disputes on revising the article 9.
Of course this is not a complete list.


(1) UN activities
In areas where it's too dangerous for civilians to be involved in international cooperation activities, the Self-Defense Forces are inevitably expected to be dispatched.Yomiuri

(a) The deeper commitment to the allies will ensure more security

it is essential to shore up this country's alliance with the United States and play an active role in international peace cooperation activities. Doing so will help to ensure our own peace and security.Yomiuri

(b)Exercise of collective defence is necessary for it.
Should the situation be allowed to persist in which even if our radar detects a missile that may hit the United States, can't we intercept it?Yomiuri

Protecting foreign troops working near Japanese forces during U.N. peacekeeping operations can also be understood in the context of using weapons to ensure security. In addition, the United States would likely be the only country that could trigger a Japanese right to collective self-defense, but the SDF also works with troops from other countries on peacekeeping operations.

Transporting weapons as logistic support for multinational and other forces often comes with use of force, and the Japanese Constitution does not allow this anyway.

Another case proposes using SDF missile defense systems to intercept ballistic missiles fired at the United States. However, current SDF systems are not capable of intercepting missiles to the United States. This may become possible in the future due to technological advances, but it is questionable if such detailed discussion is necessary when the future of missile defense systems is uncertain.Asahi

Supposing there are necessities, is the revision necessary?

You can not stretch the interpretation endlessly.

"The Constitution must be interpreted in a manner that reflects the fundamental changes taking place in our security environment.

Depending on the interpretation, it may open the way for Japan to preemptive attack---for, instance, since there is a sign that NK will attack the U.S, we're going to attack N.K.

There would be more risks for Japan to get involved in the battle fields if we revised the article 9 .:Japan avoided
landing on the battle fields ,for instance, in Afganistan, because of the article 9.

Granted the reform is necessessary, we need to impose several strict restrictions.

No comments: