Japan parliament’s approval of controversial security bill despite strong resistance from the opposition parties has created a feeling that the country has been abandoning its ideology of pacifism it has been holding since World War II. The legislation, a long-term goal by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has drawn widespread criticism from scholars, students, mayors of local cities and young and old alike, who argue that it violates Japan’s constitution. The government has so far avoided putting it to a public vote which would give the ruling party a major setback .
The legislation, that could see Japanese troops engage in combat overseas for the first time since the end of World War II, was passed after 220 hours of tortuous debate, the longest period of time ever recorded for deliberations concerning security-related legislation. The upper house of the Diet approved the legislation by a vote of 148 to 90. Members of opposition parties, such as the Democratic Party of Japan, the Japan Innovation Party, the Japanese Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Life party, voted to reject the bill that would give the government the power to intervene in conflicts by sending troops overseas to defend its allies even if the country itself is not under attack.
Japan’s present constitution, imposed by a victorious United States after the World War II, bars military from combating except in self-defence. It was at US insistence, Japan created what is called the Self-Defence Force in 1954. Advocates of the security bill say the amendment in the constitution is vital to ensure that Japan can respond to threats from an increasingly belligerent China and unstable North Korea. However, the opponents believe the US, Japan’s most important security ally, is behind the move as Washington, and some other countries welcomed Abe’s decision to expand the role of its military, which they believe will contribute to promoting peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere.
The legislation could be overturned if the supreme court rules the changes unconstitutional. But the top court can avoid giving a clear verdict on a highly political issue such as national security. In many surveys conducted recently, five in six respondents say the new law could earn Japan dangerous enemies if it backs US and other allies in Iraq-style conflicts in Middle East and elsewhere. Tokyo has recently beefed up security across its embassies worldwide after a threat from the Islamic State group, eight months after the militant outfit claimed beheading of two Japanese hostages in Syria.
Many Japanese are proud of anti-war clause in the constitution that kept the country from firing a gunshot in any of the conflict for over 70 years which is now under threat depending on the future political developments.
Japan parliament’s approval of controversial security bill despite strong resistance from the opposition parties has created a feeling that the country has been abandoning its ideology of pacifism it has been holding since World War II. The legislation, a long-term goal by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has drawn widespread criticism from scholars, students, mayors of local cities and young and old alike, who argue that it violates Japan’s constitution. The government has so far avoided putting it to a public vote which would give the ruling party a major setback .
The legislation, that could see Japanese troops engage in combat overseas for the first time since the end of World War II, was passed after 220 hours of tortuous debate, the longest period of time ever recorded for deliberations concerning security-related legislation. The upper house of the Diet approved the legislation by a vote of 148 to 90. Members of opposition parties, such as the Democratic Party of Japan, the Japan Innovation Party, the Japanese Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Life party, voted to reject the bill that would give the government the power to intervene in conflicts by sending troops overseas to defend its allies even if the country itself is not under attack.
Japan’s present constitution, imposed by a victorious United States after the World War II, bars military from combating except in self-defence. It was at US insistence, Japan created what is called the Self-Defence Force in 1954. Advocates of the security bill say the amendment in the constitution is vital to ensure that Japan can respond to threats from an increasingly belligerent China and unstable North Korea. However, the opponents believe the US, Japan’s most important security ally, is behind the move as Washington, and some other countries welcomed Abe’s decision to expand the role of its military, which they believe will contribute to promoting peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere.
The legislation could be overturned if the supreme court rules the changes unconstitutional. But the top court can avoid giving a clear verdict on a highly political issue such as national security. In many surveys conducted recently, five in six respondents say the new law could earn Japan dangerous enemies if it backs US and other allies in Iraq-style conflicts in Middle East and elsewhere. Tokyo has recently beefed up security across its embassies worldwide after a threat from the Islamic State group, eight months after the militant outfit claimed beheading of two Japanese hostages in Syria.
Many Japanese are proud of anti-war clause in the constitution that kept the country from firing a gunshot in any of the conflict for over 70 years which is now under threat depending on the future political developments.
