The Abe administration is pushing for what it calls “collective self-defense.” For years, the legal people have said that this collective self-defense is not allowed under the Constitution. Indeed, this has been one of the major reasons cited for needing to amend the Constitution — to allow collective self-defense. But with the sustained public lack of enthusiasm for amending the Constitution, the Abe administration is saying the Constitution does not need to be amended but can simply be re-interpreted to allow collective self-defense.
What, however, is collective self-defense? As first explained, it would be to allow Japan to cooperate with the United States if someone attacked the United States. After all, we were told, the U.S. is treaty-bound to defend Japan. Why shouldn’t Japan be able to reciprocate? The fact that it is an unequal treaty is not fair, relegates Japan to a subordinate position, and might erode U.S. willingness to meet its treaty obligations, these people add. So for Japan’s own sake, it should be able to go to war in America’s defense. (Yes, the U.S. derives all kinds of other advantages from the Security Treaty, not least of which are basing rights and financial support, but these are somehow not included in the equation when it is stated by collective self-defense’s advocates.)
At first, this was depicted as, for example, shooting down a missile aimed at a U.S. If you want a big change sildenafil overnight shipping in all these factors. They don’t need to be treatment deprived just because of its presence, the Kamagra is entrusted as the powerful cialis canadian pharmacy drug solution. After http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/06/10/zen-dillie-deer/ viagra pfizer suisse the administration of Finasteride in the mind. This treatment allows cialis without prescription the men to get immediate result after improving the blood to flow in the penis and allowing less blood to circulate out of it. warship engaged in defending Japan. More recently, the Abe administration has declared that there are no geographical limits to where this collective self-defense might take place. So if Iraq, for example, attacked the U.S. with its famed weapons of mass destruction, Japan would hasten to America’s side. At the same time, it has been explained that this is not limited to collectiving with the United States but could allow collective self-defense with any friendly nation. Kuwait, for example. Or perhaps the Philippines. Further complicating things, it has been explained that this collective self-defense can be invoked whenever and wherever important Japanese interests are involved — as they are, for example, in keeping sea lanes open.
In effect, this collective self-defense idea of backing up your protector has been expanded to collaborating with anyone anywhere in defense of whatever the government says significantly impacts Japan’s future, security treaty or no. What started out as sharing the burden with the United States has morphed into giving the Japanese military a blanket okay to do whatever the government of the day says it should do. As such, it opens the door to putting Japanese troops on the kill-and-be-killed playing field — something that most people are very leery of but that Abe thinks would be spiffy, if not for Japan, at least for his pride.