Byline: Francis N. Tolentino

IN the article we published last week, we spoke of how the nuclear missile test launches by North Korea once again revived the controversy on their nuclear program and drew negative worldwide attention. Condemned by antinuclear proliferation advocates, these

launches have greatly alarmed several countries (including the Philippines) and more particularly Japan. In a statement delivered by Mr. Shinzo Abe, SecretaryGeneral of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, he said: "Japan faces the greatest threat of any nation if North Korea is armed with nuclear weapons." Amidst the war on terror staged worldwide, debates have been opened relative to whether a constitutional amendment for Japan is timely and relevant considering the need for a strengthened military force to counter external terror threats similar to the one posed by North Korea.

Many believes that a constitutional change is necessary for Japan if it sincerely intends to improve is military capabilities and thus better safeguard the country. Though this constitutional change has been a proposal a few years back, it has never taken a more serious shape until now that Japan is being seriously threatened by the "provocative moves," of North Korea.

But why is Japan so alarmed that the country even considers amending its fundamental laws in order to counter North Korea's nuclear threats? And who wouldn't be! ". . . some of the seven North Korean missiles did fall within 200 miles of Japanese territory. And since 1993, North Korea has lobbed a number of missiles over Japan into the Pacific Ocean. Worse yet, at some point, Japan - and the 40,000 US forces stationed there - might be faced with the prospect of a medium range North Korea No-Dong missile armed with a nuclear warhead heading in their direction." (Why Japan is so concerned by Peter Brookes - July 15, 2006).

However, the problem rises beyond what has been said in the preceding paragraph. Baker Spring, a research fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Alison Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation wrote in an article (A Comprehensive Set of Military Options for Countering North Korea's Growing Missile Threat - July 5, 2006): "North Korea's medium-range missile force, whether armed with conventional warheads or weapons of mass destruction, is designed to intimidate and isolate Japan. While isolating Japan serves North Korea's immediate purpose of complicating the ability of the US to intervene militarily in East Asia, it also appears that North Korea is doing the bidding of its long-time friend China. China seeks to isolate Japan because it sees Japan as a barrier to achieving regional hegemony in East Asia."

A particular focus of the constitutional change issue in Japan is Chapter II, Article IX (Renunciation of War) which says: "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 a 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."

One should recall that Japan's existing Self-Defense Forces (SDF) was hastily organized in 1950 upon the suggestion of General Douglas MacArthur when he sent the Japan-based US forces to the Korean War. Moreover, the Japanese people's so-called pacifist attitude was recently put to test when their government sent a big SDF contingent to the Iraq war. One could only surmise that the current Japanese generation has little post-World War II emotions.

In light of an ever changing world security environment, coupled with the rise of accessible nuclear technology that may either be used for beneficial or destructive ends, Japan is faced with a charter change issue that moves alongside with a reexamination of their defense policy. Japan's "Peace Constitution" is indeed worthy, as it is actually what the world had long aspired for. However, to adapt to the changing times, and to preempt the acts of present and future aggressors in order to preserve regional peace and security, it is likewise essential for Japan to supplant its economic prowess with security support for its neighbors. It might still be a long way to go if indeed the Japanese people pushes for constitutional reforms, but the more important thing for them right now is to acknowledge the need to amend their constitution. It will be difficult to predict what North Korea's next move will be. As what former US Ambassador to Japan Edwin O. Reischauer once said: "Neutrality still has great appeal, but completely disarmed neutrally and simple dependence for security on the United Nations are now seen only as distant dreams." (E-mail address: myrfnt@yahoo.com)