Written on April 25, 2017, this essay traces Japan’s postwar security trajectory from the U.S.-centered peace settlement under Shigeru Yoshida to the revision of the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty under Nobusuke Kishi and the security legislation pursued by Shinzo Abe. It exposes the contradiction in claiming that collective self-defense exists as a right but cannot be exercised, criticizing constitutional scholars trapped in pedantic legalism detached from reality.

2017-04-25

The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Prime Minister Yoshida moved forward with a separate peace treaty, but Japan remained in a position resembling that of a U.S. protectorate.
Prior to this, the Korean War had broken out.
Although it was claimed that Japan possessed no military forces, the creation of the National Police Reserve became unavoidable.
Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi revised the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty in order to escape Japan’s status as a protected state.
However, the Self-Defense Forces that were established were ultimately given only the operational principles of a police organization.
Prime Minister Abe, during his first cabinet, elevated the Defense Agency to the Ministry of Defense and sought to develop security legislation to make national defense truly effective.
Even if it is not written in a constitution, every country possesses the right of self-defense.
In Japan’s case, the restraint is found in Article 9, Paragraph 2, which states that “the right of belligerency of the state shall not be recognized.”
One must not strike unless struck first; if struck, one may defend oneself. Collective self-defense exists for that purpose.
For a long time, Japan has interpreted collective self-defense as “a right that exists but cannot be exercised.”
In which country’s dictionary is there a definition of a right that exists but cannot be exercised?
The United Nations Charter recognizes the right of collective self-defense.
The new security legislation allows the use of the minimum necessary force under collective self-defense if an attack threatens the very existence of the nation.
Some constitutional scholars behave as though they are engaging in “kunko-gaku.”
Kunko refers to falling into a game of verifying the meanings of individual characters while losing sight of the text as a whole.
(Excerpt ends)