Opinion Article 9 must go By Scott T. Hards	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
憲法9条をなくすべきだ 米同時多発テロに対する軍事報復が始まった。日本の米軍支援は憲法9条によって制限されるが、犠牲者を最小限にとどめ、平和を望むなら積極的にテロと闘うべきだ。そもそも9条は事実上破たんしているのだから、なくすべきではないだろうか。

"...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." This key portion of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is why it is often referred to as the "peace Constitution."

Many Japanese are very proud of their Constitution and Article 9. But there are big problems with Article 9. Not only is it utterly removed from reality, but it is morally bankrupt.

The second half of Article 9 says that "...land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." Quite the farce, given that Japan has one of the best-armed military forces in the world. Worse is all the pretending that Japan has renounced force. If the country were directly attacked, of course the Self-Defense Forces would shoot back. And don't forget the United States, always standing by, pledged to defend.

In other words, "we renounce war, but if it's necessary, we've got somebody who will handle it for us." That's what I mean by moral bankruptcy: nobody has really renounced anything.

As I write these words, a fierce debate is taking place in Japan's Diet over the role that the country's military should play in the international effort against terrorism. Extreme liberals say no troops should leave the country. Conservatives envision them doing everything but pulling triggers. Personally, I'd like to see Japanese forces fighting side by side with troops of the U.S. and other nations.

This debate about whether Japan should handle weapons or not is absurd. From a moral standpoint, it doesn't matter whether they pull triggers or not. If they're supporting the American-led effort, be it with trucks or with guns, then they are on the same team as everybody else. The terrorists who get blasted are not going to forgive Japan because they didn't handle ordnance.

Why do I feel this way about Japan's role? Because it's appropriate for the world's second-largest economic power to contribute to global security in an active way. And also because at least 24 Japanese were murdered in the Sept. 11 attacks. It's senseless that the nation cannot respond properly to that crime.

The "peace" longed for by many pacifists and Article 9 is not true peace. It is simply the absence of violence, a very different thing. Real peace comes not when killing ends, but when those who would kill are eliminated. And that cannot always be done with diplomacy. So Article 9 must go. But don't misunderstand me. I love peace as much as anyone.

Unfortunately, many pacifists confuse conservatives' support of military force as support of war or killing itself. On the contrary, it is our love of peace and our burning desire to prevent the deaths of innocents that inspire us to support strong measures, even if they may require the spilling of some blood. Put simply, we believe it's worth a few lives to save many.

But to label as "terror vs. terror" the use of force against the criminals of Sept. 11, as has been done in this column, is to reveal a stunning inability to make a moral distinction between the premeditated slaughter of innocents and the tough action necessary to prevent such crimes. It is as much deterrence as it is revenge, and that means saving lives in the end, not taking them.

Shukan ST: Oct. 26, 2001

(C) All rights reserved