It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US questions Japan's pacifism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I can only assume Mr. Collin Powell is obeying orders from the Whitehouse, but now the Administration thinks it can tell countrys that they have to change their Constitution.
These people never cease to amaze me;
 



news.bbc.co.uk
US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Japan must consider revising its pacifist constitution if it wants a permanent UN Security Council seat.
Article Nine of the constitution, drawn up under US post-war occupation, renounces the use of force in disputes.
Japan plays a role in international peacekeeping, and currently has troops in Iraq, but its constitution limits its military's powers.
However, revising Article Nine would be highly controversial in Japan.
more


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I guess the Bush administration really do think they rule the world

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 14-8-2004 by Sauron]

[edit on 8-14-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Not everyone wants to be at war, including me.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Everything he has done under the Bush administration. Just does not add up. I considered him of high moral character until this in conjunction with the WMD speech he gave along w/ photos.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
If those Japanese insist on staying pacifist how does anyone get to complain - and start a new war? - using such 'choice lines' as "Japan'll never accept a 'nuclear' equiped North Korea, she'll 'be forced' go nuclear herself".

Really!

I mean really!

How is George going to get his nice new NK war if Japan won't play along, why won't they just feel threatened like they been told to!?



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Wow, kick the Japanese out of the UN because they don't declare their allegience to King George? Bush is again proving why I will not vote for him.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I don't support the Bush Administration on most issues so I'm going to file this under "denying ignorance".

I can't find any where in this article where Powell or the Bush Administration are telling Japan they have to revise their Constitution. They are saying that to become a permanant member of the UN Security Council they need to give their military more power, which makes a little sense when you read something like this:


Under current laws, tanks are required to wait at traffic lights and local government approval is needed for any manoeuvres.


Powell goes on to say in the article cited at the beginning of the thread:


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 kind of obligations that it would pick up as a member of the Security Council, Article Nine would have to be examined in that light. Whether or not Article Nine should be modified or changed is absolutely and entirely up to the Japanese people to decide.


I'm all for keeping out of other countries business, and I'm not pro-UN, but it seems as if a country wants to be a permanent member of the Security Council, they have to hack it as a full member of the Security Council.

Nowhere does it speak of kicking Japan out of the UN under any condition.


Article Nine of the Japanese Constitution says this: Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, 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. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.


North Korea is a real threat. Ever since they were proclaimed part of the "Axis of Evil" people have looked at North Korea as just a boogeyman created as War on Terror propaganda. It's not. North Korea is much more dangerous to world security then Iraq was, this is a totally different game. I don't believe we'll ever invade North Korea, it's much too close to China. However, if I were Japan, I'd want make quite sure North Korea would think twice about any kind of hostile actions.

news.bbc.co.uk...:

Intelligence reports say North Korea is preparing to test a ballistic missile over Japan to show off its offensive capability, but Japan's defence forces can only sit and watch.


If you can't keep your own country secure, you shouldn't have a permanent seat on a security council.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
I can't find any where in this article where Powell or the Bush Administration are telling Japan they have to revise their Constitution. They are saying that to become a permanant member of the UN Security Council they need to give their military more power, which makes a little sense when you read something like this:


Yes, this particular issue is about wanting to be on the UN security council and I see nothing wrong with saying that if you want to be on the council, there are certain rules that must be followed.

This is not, however, the first instance of Japan being asked to change article nine.


ASAHI, July 23:
WASHINGTON-Pacifist Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is an impediment to the alliance between Japan and the United States, according to U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

He made his comments Wednesday to Hidenao Nakagawa, chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party's Diet Affairs Committee, who is visiting Washington.

Armitage indicated that the present constitutional interpretation prohibiting the exercise of Japan's right to collective self-defense will have to be revised to further strengthen the military alliance between the two nations.

Armitage said much the same thing in a proposal he helped write four years ago when he was still working in the private sector as part of a bipartisan panel that outlined policy positions.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Well, this is interesting since the pacifist position of the Japanese was a result of the treaty signed by the allies and Japan at the end of WWII.
The Japanese have in the recent past, shown an interest in expanding their defense capabilities.

For myself, I would rather have the Japan we have all come to know and love over the last 60 years. I think that Powell's position is an "if, then" propsition and as someone else so cogently pointed out, the decision is the Japanese's alone.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I personally think Japan is an example to the rest of the developed world in exactly what a "defence force" really should be. A pacifist nation IMO is exactly what the security council needs
.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The thought crossed my mind drfunk, perhaps the best possible thing for the Security Council would be to have a pacifist nation as a permanent member.

Of course I'm sure the Pentagon and DoD are drooling to have a country with an advanced, attack capable force (that doesn't include any American lives) so close to China and North Korea.




top topics



 
0

log in

join