Japanese PM circumvents the constitution
- By Zhao Jinglun
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, July 3, 2014
|
|
|
South Korean protestors stage an anti Abe government rally in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul on July 2, 2014. [Xinhua photo] |
![South Korean protestors stage an anti Abe government rally in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul on July 2, 2014. [Xinhua photo]](http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20140703/001ec949c22b151f116212.jpg "South Korean protestors stage an anti Abe government rally in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul on July 2, 2014. [Xinhua photo]")
Supposedly, the cabinet of the day would judge whether a situation meets the three conditions for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense in an "objective, rational and comprehensive manner."
The Japanese people are overwhelmingly against Abe's move to gain the right to fight wars again. The cabinet resolution in effect negates Article 9 of the Pacific Constitution, which says: "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."
Shinzo Abe was able to reinterpret and thus circumvent the constitution because he has majority votes in both houses of the Diet.
But ultimately, Washington serves as the decisive enabler. It has come out explicitly in support of Japan's claim to the right of collective self-defense, so that Japan can serve better as its pawn and do the dirty work which it is reluctant or unable to do itself.
In the end it will be lifting a rock to crush its own toes, as the Japanese right has not forgotten the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities.
Washington has a penchant for doing things that will eventually boomerang on itself.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.formacion-profesional-a-distancia.com/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
