By Suvendrini Kakuchi
TOKYO, Aug 25 2004 (IPS)

While Japan tries to seek a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council, there is a growing perception that the country’s constitution, promulgated in 1946, is out of touch with the present transformed world as well as the realities of Japanese society.

At the root of the controversy is Article Nine of the constitution and whether Japan can exercise the right to collective self-defence. The government’s constitutional interpretation is that the nation has the right, but cannot exercise it.

But Japan, as the world’s second-largest economy, is in a position to play a large global political role as well. Hopes are rising for the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) to make greater contributions to maintaining world peace and stability under the auspices of the U. N. peacekeeping forces.

A big question for the Japanese nation is how to define the SDF’s existence and its activities within the restrictive ambit of Article Nine, especially at a moment when it is seeking a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council, to join the United States, China, Russia, France, and Britain.

This was brought up recently by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. He said that while the United States supports Japan’s drive for a seat on the U.N. Security Council, its effectiveness as a permanent member might come under question if its pacifist constitution is not amended.

‘’We understand the importance of Article Nine to the Japanese people and why it’s in your constitution,’’ Powell told a group of Japanese journalists visiting Washington.

‘’But at the same time, if Japan is going to play a full role on the world stage and become a full active participating member of the Security Council and have the kinds of obligations that it would pick up as a member of the Security Council, then Article Nine would have to be examined in that light,’’ added the state secretary.

A poll in April conducted by the ‘Asahi Shimbun’, a leading daily, revealed that public support for changing Article Nine was 31 percent, compared to 17 percent in 2001.

Analysts contend a major reason for the shift in sentiment was the recent controversial dispatch of Japan’s SDF to Iraq.

At present Japan has about 600 SDF based near the town of Samawah in southern Iraq – the nation’s first troop deployment under its own flag instead of the United Nations’.

But this particular involvement of the SDF in Iraq is different from previous Japanese peacekeeping missions, where the troops have always been in post-conflict and non-combat situations. Now, for the first time since its post-war history, Japanese peacekeeping troops might have to use weapons for self-defence in a hostile environment.

The decision, pushed by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to appease the United States – Japan’s closest ally – was carried out by yet another clever interpretation of Article Nine.

A special law was passed in the Japanese Diet or parliament allowing the SDF deployment to ‘’safe’’ areas in Iraq and for the sake of ‘’preserving’’ national interest – in this case Japan’s special security alliance with the U.S. government.

But many were furious at the way Koizumi managed to push the SDF dispatch through the Diet in May.

Several critics, including the ‘Chugoku Shimbun’, a leading daily in western Japan, have brought out the fact that a clearly worded constitution is long overdue to stop the various interpretations of Article Nine.

Already there are indications that Koizumi could resort to his own interpretation of Article Nine in order to push for Japan’s inclusion into the U.N. Security Council

On Tuesday, the premier said he would reiterate Japan’s aspiration to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council without revising the war-renouncing constitution when he addresses next month’s U.N. General Assembly meeting.

‘’I think there would be no problem for there to be a permanent (Security Council) member that is different from existing members,’’ Koizumi told reporters at his official capital residence.

Besides the requirement of an urgent national debate as to what kind of constitution Japan should have in the 21st century, there is also the need for a Constitutional Court to ensure that bureaucrats and politicians adhere to the Constitution.

‘’An organisation that takes up the function of a Constitutional Court is particularly necessary in Japan where, for the past thirty years, the Supreme Court has shied away from making judgments on the Constitution,’’ Gebhart Hilshire, director of the Tokyo office of the Germany’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation, told IPS.

The foundation, together with the Asia Foundation, recently organised a symposium on constitutional courts with legal experts from Japan, South Korea, Europe and the United States.

While a Constitutional Court does have its importance, the final choice, however, in amending Article Nine rests with the Japanese people.

‘’The merits of setting up a Constitutional Court is not in question. What is at stake is setting up a suitable system for Japan given the uniqueness and requirements of its particular culture,’’ pointed out Itsuo Sonobe, a former Supreme Court judge.

Whatever the difficulties, it seems that political debate on Article Nine has become inevitable at the present moment. (END/IPS/AP/IP/WD/SK/SI/04)

Excerpt: