Japan’s Self-Defense Forces possess one of the world’s most powerful conventional militaries, yet their existence is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This contradiction has produced endless legal disputes and artificial terminology, revealing the deep absurdity of Japan’s postwar security framework and the urgent need for constitutional clarity.

February 24, 2017

Originally, there is a fundamental problem in the fact that the very existence of the Self-Defense Forces, which are responsible for the defense of the nation, is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
What follows is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Why is the Self-Defense Forces not a military?
Originally, there is a fundamental problem in the fact that the very existence of the Self-Defense Forces, which bear responsibility for national defense, is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
With 1,008 aircraft including fighter jets and patrol planes, 137 vessels such as high-tech destroyers, 1,650 vehicles including tanks and armored vehicles, 1,550 field guns and mortars, and a total personnel strength of approximately 250,000, the Self-Defense Forces possess formidable power.
In terms of conventional forces, the Self-Defense Forces boast world-class capabilities, and regardless of their legal positioning, in outward appearance they are unmistakably a “military” to anyone who sees them.
Nevertheless, the Japanese government has thus far refused to regard the Self-Defense Forces as a military, and has maintained their constitutionality only by defining them as a “non-military armed organization” strictly limited to exclusively defensive purposes.
However, the fact that the existence of the Self-Defense Forces is not explicitly stated in the Constitution is a serious problem.
For it gives rise to the absurd theological debate over whether the Self-Defense Forces are constitutional or unconstitutional.
Therefore, in order to put an end to such barren theological disputes, the existence of the Self-Defense Forces should be clearly stated in the Constitution as soon as possible.
In any case, because of the pretense that the Self-Defense Forces are not a military, even their terminology has been forcibly altered.
For example, what was once called “war” is now rephrased as “situations” or “armed conflicts.”
This is because Japan’s Constitution renounces “war,” and therefore any emergency faced by the Self-Defense Forces, which are not regarded as a military, must not be called “war.”
It is a comical situation, but in this way Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution has truly “eradicated” the word “war” from Japanese society.
Furthermore, within the Self-Defense Forces, “infantry” is called the “General Service Branch,” “engineers” are called the “Facilities Branch,” and “artillery” is given the name “Special Branch,” a title that cannot even be inferred from the characters themselves.
In order to emphasize that the Self-Defense Forces are not a military, terminology associated with the former army was purged from traditional military language, and the characters meaning “army,” “soldier,” and “war” were thoroughly removed from all names.
This was precisely like a witch hunt conducted by religious courts in medieval Europe.
Although organizational names such as division, regiment, company, squadron, air wing, and fleet have somehow escaped this purge, there are now hardly any people who feel discomfort at such terms remaining within the Self-Defense Forces.
Rather, it is the forced renaming of infantry as General Service and artillery as Special Branch that feels unnatural and strange.
In any event, these were likely desperate measures taken by the Japanese government at the time in order to eliminate the image of a military.
But fundamentally, while there is no problem with calling an armed organization that protects the state and its people the “Self-Defense Forces,” it is utterly unreasonable that it should not be permitted to call itself a “military.”
[To be continued.]