Two of three would see constitution revised
Major candidates for Japan's leadership, including Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, claim Japan's right to collective self defense, which could encompass a controversial revision of Japan's so-called Peace Constitution. If a nation invades another country, a third country's unspoken right to collective self-defense would hypothetically allow Japan to attack the aggressor on the victim's behalf. So if Tokyo exercises this right, it would mean Japan intervening in a war. But that would go against the tenets of Japan's Peace Constitution, in place since the period of occupation that followed the end of World War II. Abe, who is a leading candidate for the next prime minister, said to a press conference on Aug. 1, "There have been discussions among the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and Japanese people over exercising the right [to collective self-defense] through constitutional revision or reinterpretation of the constitution. It is necessary to always have a critical mind." As chief cabinet secretary, Abe tiptoed around his wording, but his point is that Japan should take a more proactive role in the U.S.-Japan military alliance by exercising collective self-defense rights through reinterpreting its Peace Constitution. In his recent book, Abe sad that "the interpretation that [Japan] possesses the right to collective defense, but that we cannot exercise it, won't be valid forever."Finance Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki agreed with Abe's sentiments, saying, "We need to recognize this [potential need to exercise collective self-defense]," and Foreign Minister Taro Aso supported Abe, as well: "We cannot accept if Japan 'falls down' while trying to maintain the [letter of the] law." But the two ministers call for rewriting the constitution, showing a divergence of opinion with Abe. Minister Tanigaki remarked, "It is our basic position to proceed with the problem while discussing how to deal with the constitution." But Aso noted in March, "It is one of options for the government to change its interpretation of the constitution, but that is somewhat unreasonable."
