Hayao Miyazaki voices opposition to constitutional amendment push by LDP - Polidicks

[quote][I]Asahi Shimbun[/I] Anime director Hayao Miyazaki and other members of his Studio Ghibli have voiced their opposition to the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s push to revise Japan’s pacifist Constitution in a July article in the studio’s free booklet. “It goes without saying that I am against amending the Constitution,” the 72-year-old Miyazaki wrote. The booklet, titled “Neppu” (Hot Wind), carried a special feature on constitutional revision. It explains that [B]Prime Minister Shinzo Abe intends to change Article 96, a clause that stipulates procedures needed for revisions, to make it easier to achieve his ultimate goal--scrapping the war-renouncing Article 9.[/B] Miyazaki said revising Article 9 may not pose a problem legally if Article 96 is amended.[/quote] [I]Source: [url]http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/culture/AJ201307210010[/url][/I] The Liberal Democrats won the national elections this year and are expressing a desire to legalize what Abe calls 'collective self-defense'. Against who Japan would be defending, I don't know, but that's his idea. For an idea on what Article 9 actually says, here's the text from the Japanese constitution: [quote]「第九条　日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する。 二　前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない。」 [I]"ARTICLE 9. 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.[/I] [I](2) 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."[/I][/quote] As the article indicates, the first step the LDP wants to take is revising Article 96, which would make it easier to pass constitutional revisions by changing the two-thirds requirement in both houses of parliament to a simple majority. Among their other revision plans include changing the definition of human rights from something humans innately possess to something entitled to them by the state.

Can they even change it? I mean, how would they change it since the USA wrote it and etc. I love Japan, but they kind of have no need to declare war and the only real thing I'd support is their ability to maintain a military, rather than just the most armed swat force on the planet.

[QUOTE=Megafan;41570718] Against who Japan would be defending, I don't know, but that's his idea. [/QUOTE] Spoilers: It's China. Spoilers: It's probably about those tiny shitty islands in the Sea of Japan.

[QUOTE=MrBob1337;41570743]Spoilers: It's China. Spoilers: It's probably about those tiny shitty islands in the Sea of Japan.[/QUOTE] Yeah, most likely. Here's some of them that's in their possession and disputed by China, since if it's in the pacific ocean, China generally has unlawful claims on it. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Senkaku_Diaoyu_Tiaoyu_Islands.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Nikota;41570738]Can they even change it? I mean, how would they change it since the USA wrote it and etc. I love Japan, but they kind of have no need to declare war and the only real thing I'd support is their ability to maintain a military, rather than just the most armed swat force on the planet.[/QUOTE] The American occupation government imposed it originally, but that occupation ended in 1952. The government is completely within their right to change it, but I don't think it's a wise idea considering this kind of pacifism is something all nations should aspire to. [QUOTE=MrBob1337;41570743]Spoilers: It's China. Spoilers: It's probably about those tiny shitty islands in the Sea of Japan.[/QUOTE] Well, the Senkaku-Diaoyu issue is one I think is overblown by Japanese conservatives and the Chinese government, but I think Abe wants it for more than just that.

Cause you know, 400 km away makes it totally Chinese.

I don't understand what this is. Are they trying to remove Japan's right to have a military or something?

Japan needs to acknowledge and apologize for all their war crimes, especially against China, before anyone is going to let them build a military of any significance. Besides, a 'self defense force' large enough to defend against China is well beyond their ability to pay for, because China can easily outspend them now.

[QUOTE=MS-DOS4;41570799]I don't understand what this is. Are they trying to remove Japan's right to have a military or something?[/QUOTE] Japan already has what is effectively a military, the Self-Defense Forces. Article 9 of the constitution basically states that it can only be used in defense, and more recently has been interpreted to allow participation on humanitarian missions.

[QUOTE=Nikota;41570738]Can they even change it? I mean, how would they change it since the USA wrote it and etc. I love Japan, but they kind of have no need to declare war and the only real thing I'd support is their ability to maintain a military, rather than just the most armed swat force on the planet.[/QUOTE] They can change it because they're their own sovereign nation and not a US protectorate, so they can change their constitution based on its current stipulations about changing it without the need to ask permission from another country, even the one who wrote it. And aside from invading them again, the US can't stop them, and it hasn't really had a say in Japanese politics since the occupation ended.

Not really surprised to be honest, Princess Mononoke, Howl's Moving Castle, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and Castle in the Sky have pretty strong and graphic anti-war statements, especially for children's movies.

Honestly, I don't see the issue in removing this. Germany and Italy have militaries still, and 99% of those involved in World War 2 are either senile or dead. I think Japan should have the right, especially being so close to NK.

[QUOTE=Fangz;41570972]Honestly, I don't see the issue in removing this. Germany and Italy have militaries still, and 99% of those involved in World War 2 are either senile or dead. I think Japan should have the right, especially being so close to NK.[/QUOTE] As I said, the issue is not establishing 'military forces' specifically. The article has already been interepreted to allow the Self-Defense Forces which has just about every feature of a 'military'. The issue in question here is that it stipulates that the government can only use them for relief/humanitarian missions or in pure self-defence.

While Japan has a less than stellar war crime history, it has been close to 70 years since WW2. Mindsets have changed, and any sovereign nation deserves the ability to set a defense policy to keep their citizens safe, even if one of the options is preemptive strikes.

[quote]"ARTICLE 9. 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.[/quote] this is a cool as shit law ngl - in terms of wording and intent

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;41572488]While Japan has a less than stellar war crime history, it has been close to 70 years since WW2. Mindsets have changed, and any sovereign nation deserves the ability to set a defense policy to keep their citizens safe, even if one of the options is preemptive strikes.[/QUOTE] Before WWII Japan had a reputation for the most humane prison camps in the known world, they were very nice, respectful and accommodating to their prisoners as they could be. It was the changes in command and doctrine before/during WWII that prompted them to become so brutal. Seeing as these people are long dead now, and all Japanese know of the atrocities that were committed, I highly doubt that, should they rebuild their military, they should be repeated.

I always respected post-war Japan for maintaining a pacifistic constitution and to change that is a crying shame not only for the Japanese but for everyone. The less countries that allow non-defensive war to be a legitimate tool of the state the better

liberal democrats huh

[QUOTE=Megafan;41571057]As I said, the issue is not establishing 'military forces' specifically. The article has already been interepreted to allow the Self-Defense Forces which has just about every feature of a 'military'. The issue in question here is that it stipulates that the government can only use them for relief/humanitarian missions or in pure self-defence.[/QUOTE] True, but they can't react to threats. Japan has already had a few close calls this year with 'test' missiles coming from North Korea, and have even been threatened by them. North Korea has forced the Japanese people into a semi-state of fear because of this, and if Japan had the ability to declare war, North Korea would think twice before doing anything like they did again.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;41572542]all Japanese know of the atrocities that were committed[/QUOTE] Except, you know, [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068"]that they don't[/URL]. Japan deliberately downplays and de-emphasizes its own actions in WW2, preferring instead to devote as little time as possible to the most critical period of Japan's 20th-Century history. Meanwhile, the textbooks go on for ages and ages about pre-20th-century history. The Rape of Nanjing is a [B]fucking footnote[/B] in a Japanese middle school history textbook. Yasukuni Shrine includes the graves of several Japanese war criminals, and it is respectfully visited annually by the Prime Minister. This angers Korea and China every year, and every year Japan waits for all the noise to die down and quietly starts making plans for the next year's visit.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;41573653]Except, you know, [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068"]that they don't[/URL]. Japan deliberately downplays and de-emphasizes its own actions in WW2, preferring instead to devote as little time as possible to the most critical period of Japan's 20th-Century history. Meanwhile, the textbooks go on for ages and ages about pre-20th-century history. The Rape of Nanjing is a [B]fucking footnote[/B] in a Japanese middle school history textbook. Yasukuni Shrine includes the graves of several Japanese war criminals, and it is respectfully visited annually by the Prime Minister. This angers Korea and China every year, and every year Japan waits for all the noise to die down and quietly starts making plans for the next year's visit.[/QUOTE] Did you even read the article you posted? It says quite clearly the guidelines set by the Ministry of Education include teaching of the WWII atrocities, but that schools can choose how to go about it and what textbooks to use. The only evidence of textbooks' bad methods is one anecdote from the writer and an author who wrote a book about the subject, so there's nothing there to even tell you how prevalent it is. As for Yasukuni Shrine, there are a lot more people there than just the war criminals, to think they're going there specifically to honour them is just asinine. Does us all a favour and avoid saying "Japan does" anything, because these are people you're talking about, not some kind of hivemind. [editline]23rd July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Fangz;41573599]True, but they can't react to threats. Japan has already had a few close calls this year with 'test' missiles coming from North Korea, and have even been threatened by them. North Korea has forced the Japanese people into a semi-state of fear because of this, and if Japan had the ability to declare war, North Korea would think twice before doing anything like they did again.[/QUOTE] That's probably because you shouldn't respond to a threat with an attack. If North Korea did attack Japan, they know that Japan has the support of the US and the rest of NATO, and even if they didn't, North Korea hardly has the force projection to effectively wage war on Japan anyway. Other than just launching a missile into Japan (something you cannot attack ahead of without breaching international law, article 9 or no article 9) there's not much the North Koreans can do.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;41573653]Except, you know, [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068"]that they don't[/URL]. Japan deliberately downplays and de-emphasizes its own actions in WW2, preferring instead to devote as little time as possible to the most critical period of Japan's 20th-Century history. Meanwhile, the textbooks go on for ages and ages about pre-20th-century history. The Rape of Nanjing is a [B]fucking footnote[/B] in a Japanese middle school history textbook. Yasukuni Shrine includes the graves of several Japanese war criminals, and it is respectfully visited annually by the Prime Minister. This angers Korea and China every year, and every year Japan waits for all the noise to die down and quietly starts making plans for the next year's visit.[/QUOTE] Lol that's funny I asked my spouse and her girlfriends if they were taught that stuff and they all said yes. I think something you're reading might be inaccurate. Furthermore, they said it was long and boring because they didn't like history class (surprise surprise Japanese school students are also like students in other parts of the world).

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;41574714]Lol that's funny I asked my spouse and her girlfriends if they were taught that stuff and they all said yes. I think something you're reading might be inaccurate. Furthermore, they said it was long and boring because they didn't like history class (surprise surprise Japanese school students are also like students in other parts of the world).[/QUOTE] There is a board under the Ministry of Education that creates a selection of textbooks from private publishers. Schools then get to choose freely from this selection which textbooks they want to use. Textbooks which allegedly downplay events like the Nanjing Massacre sometimes make it into the selection, causing controversy, but (fortunately) only a tiny minority of schools actually choose to use these textbooks. Hence, it's only natural that most students are not exposed to them, instead having used more moderate textbooks. [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41573282]liberal democrats huh[/QUOTE] Most countries don't semantically follow American political terminology when translating to English. The translations are literal.

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;41575570]Most countries don't semantically follow American political terminology when translating to English. The translations are literal.[/QUOTE] Never mind the Lib-Dems in the UK...

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;41575570] Most countries don't semantically follow American political terminology when translating to English. The translations are literal.[/QUOTE] In what world does any brand of liberalism and democracy involve militarism

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41576549]In what world does any brand of liberalism and democracy involve militarism[/QUOTE] Nobody is selling these proposed revisions as militarism (except, perhaps, fringe right-wing groups without affiliation with big political parties). As is well known, Japan has a military in all but name. The current rhetoric by the LDP is varied (it's a big party with many different factions), but when it comes to article 9, it's generally phrased in terms of "national defense" and contribution to international operations (which is currently only interpreted as allowed in a [I]limited[/I] capacity), not in terms of aggression. Not that it really matters, LDP and its name is really old, and until the 90's served as an umbrella for basically all mainstream politics, so the semantics of the name are pretty much meaningless. Personally I strongly disagree with about 90% of the revisions they propose, including any revision of article 9, hence I think it's too risky to open up for any kind of revision at this stage, but the constitution is a real mess and could need some work in the long term.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41576549]In what world does any brand of liberalism and democracy involve militarism[/QUOTE] the one where you aren't the only country. [editline]24th July 2013[/editline] Japanese people all over the world seem to have gotten the short end of the stick during and right after WWII ex "Hmm you are of Japanese ancestory? You must be a spy! I'm going to force you to relocate to a camp in the middle of the desert and sell your land." "Hmm we just nuked you and you surrendered? Better make sure you are unable to declare war on anyone ever again"

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;41576549]In what world does any brand of liberalism and democracy involve militarism[/QUOTE] Liberalism is : "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values" , which is pretty close to what American "liberals" are. Neither liberalism nor democracy are mutually exclusive with favoring militarism.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;41582623]"Hmm we just nuked you and you surrendered? Better make sure you are unable to declare war on anyone ever again"[/QUOTE] If you were being honest you'd admit they got nuked for a lot more than declaring war on someone. That's why no one will allow them to build any kind of offensive military force. No one can trust them. Unlike the Germans, who totally owned up to what they did as a country and have done everything they can to make up for it, the Japanese continue to squirm out of directly addressing their past. So while most of the world is past WWII Germany, lots of people are still waiting on the Japanese to deal with their past. The internment camps we put them in here in the US and the two Atomic bombs being dropped on them were war crimes, in my opinion. But that doesn't excuse the Japanese from apologizing to others, especially China. That's the bottomline, they did some evil stuff to the Chinese and they need to do whatever it takes to make that right. China has far too much economic and political power now for the Japanese to think they even have a chance in hell to counter the Chinese with military force. The Chinese can slowly strangle them economically over the coming decades and never fire a shot. It's in Japan's long term best interest to swallow their pride and square things with China ASAP.

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;41579942]Nobody is selling these proposed revisions as militarism (except, perhaps, fringe right-wing groups without affiliation with big political parties). As is well known, Japan has a military in all but name. The current rhetoric by the LDP is varied (it's a big party with many different factions), but when it comes to article 9, it's generally phrased in terms of "national defense" and contribution to international operations (which is currently only interpreted as allowed in a [I]limited[/I] capacity), not in terms of aggression. Not that it really matters, LDP and its name is really old, and until the 90's served as an umbrella for basically all mainstream politics, so the semantics of the name are pretty much meaningless. Personally I strongly disagree with about 90% of the revisions they propose, including any revision of article 9, hence I think it's too risky to open up for any kind of revision at this stage, but the constitution is a real mess and could need some work in the long term.[/QUOTE] Well the immediate issue is just whether or not they can get a two-thirds vote to revise Article 96 first, which has less publicity than revising Article 9. I'm skeptical of whether or not they can do that, since in the House of Councillors the LDP and their partner New Komeito only have ~55% of the seats, and would need to convince the Restoration Party nationalists to vote with them. However even that would only get them 59% and would need the votes of the Independents, since the Communists and Democrats definitely aren't going to sign on. Point being, Abe's revisions are shit, he's a bit of a misogynist, and I don't like his haircut.