The amendment of Article 9 of Japan's Peace Constitution, as proposed by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), is of deep concern to all countries of Northeast Asia, as well as to Japan itself, because it directly influences the peace and stability of the entire region. However, with the resignation of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who publicly promised delivery of the amendment within his term of office, and the inauguration of the more moderate prime minister Yasuo Fukuda, the urgency of the situation has eased somewhat. Despite that, however, outside of Japan many analysts continue to believe that Japan will at some time in the future repeal Article 9 of its Constitution.

Of course, Japan has the right to amend its Constitution. It must be remembered, however, that Article 9 is not just a part of Japan's Constitution; it is also a promise of peace to its neighboring countries. Especially to those countries that experienced hardships as a result of Japan's past colonization and expansionist wars. Through this article Japan pledged "the renouncement of war, of war potential, of belligerency." Without the cooperation of its neighboring countries, any revision of Article 9 may well revive the spirit of Japanese militarism and consequently threaten peace in the entire region. Therefore, any amendment to Article 9 is of concern to all countries of the region.

Concerns arising from the proposed amendment of Article 9 have led pacifists in Japan and South Korea to form the Article 9 Association. However, the challenge of constitutional reform is too serious an issue for the peace movement to deal with alone. This is because this issue is directly related to the political landscape of Northeast Asia and is also of immense importance for continued peace in Asia and in the world.

The Japanese Debate on the Revision of Article 9

The Diet's (House of Representatives') Research Commission on the Constitution published its report in April 2005. Taro Nakayama, its chairman, said in the foreword: "I was always mindful that the Constitution belongs to the people; in discussing the Constitution, rather than arguing from partisan positions, we should always adopt the perspective of the people." He especially stressed "Nakayama's Three Principles": respect for human rights, the sovereignty of the people, and the commitment never again to become an aggressor nation. The report did, however, raise a question about Article 9, asking to what degree it reflects the current reality of Japan and the region. It concluded by saying that any discrepancy between Article 9 and the present political situation ought to be addressed. In line with this, the Diet passed the Referendum Law, which establishes procedures for a national referendum to revise the Constitution.

Lawmakers from opposition parties on the commission expressed concern about this situation. Rep. Masao Akamatsu of the Komei Party pointed out that the task of the commission was initially to examine only the reality, and not to propose any amendments. He said that it is not desirable to race to the misguided conclusion that constitutional amendments can meet all the challenges arising from both inside and outside of Japan. He further stressed that a rushed response to the problem may lead to dire consequences in the future.

Arguing that the Japanese people need to return to the spirit of the Constitution and its promise of a lasting peace, Rep. Akamatsu asserted that what is needed is a composed discussion and measured response, not a hurried reaction. Such an opinion would seem to be representative of the Japanese people as a whole, who tend to view Article 9 as an opportunity to build a permanent peace. Many Japanese people believe that Japan achieved its economic revival thanks to the peace promoted by the spirit of the Constitution, and that its economic power should be used to encourage the growth of such a lasting peace.

Rep. Tomio Yamaguchi of the Japanese Communist Party has pointed out that Japan's dispatch of Self-Defense Force members to the war in Iraq has greatly damaged the peace principle of Article 9. And he further stressed how over the years Article 9 has provided great vitality in the building of world peace. By opposing any revision of the Constitution, Rep. Yamaguchi claims that Japan is helping to promote peace, human rights, and democracy, both in Asia and in the wider world.

Takako Doi, former head of the Social Democratic Party, has pointedly remarked that her nation's Constitution is facing its biggest crisis since its establishment, in the form of attempts to reform Article 9. She has reproached the Research Commission on the Constitution for its activities, claiming that it has put the cart before the horse. According to her, the Japanese government has violated Article 9 of the Constitution, and it is attempting to revise the Constitution on the basis of this violation.

Korea's Perspective on the Revision of Article 9

The passage of the Referendum Law in the Japanese Diet has led to reaction in Korea. Prime Minister Abe's statement, made on Constitution Day (May 3, 2007), calling for a constitutional revision, drew the attention of the Korean media. This was exemplified by the coverage the issue received in the Hankook Ilbo (Korea Times) on May 4, 2007; the headline read: "Abe Desires Revision so that Japan Can Conduct a War." In this article, the Hankook Ilbo claimed that Abe had dressed up the revision under the guise of building "Japan's real independence." It also reported that Abe's move had incurred criticism from other countries, such as China, with firsthand experience of Japanese imperialism, which spoke of "Japan's reviving its militarism." The daily paper then claimed that even though many Japanese people support the revision in principle, they did not want to see a change in the core clauses of the Peace Constitution, with its clearly stated renouncement of war, of war potential, and of belligerency. The paper highlighted the fact that according to a survey conducted by the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), 44 percent of respondents opposed any change to Article 9, while only 25 percent supported it.

Lee Jun-kyu, policy director of the Korean Peace Network, described the passage of the Referendum Law as a "coup d' etat by parliament" that opens the road to the repeal of the Peace Constitution. His analysis of the situation claims that the hard line taken by Abe was an attempt to "summon the conservatives" in order to raise cabinet approval ratings, but this attempt failed because it has been interpreted as a crisis for Japanese democracy. Lee recalled how Professor Yoichi Komori of the University of Tokyo, secretary-general of the Article 9 Association, previously defined the constitutional amendment bill, as proposed by the LDP in 2005, as the "thinking of a de facto coup." Lee further warned of possible future "parliamentary coups" by Abe's government and stressed that the aim was to totally change the postwar system of Japan and Article 9.

Meanwhile, on June 1, 2007, the Seoul Shinmun ran a story about human-rights advocate Shin Suk-ok, a permanent ethnic Korean resident in Japan, who claims that the Japanese government's move to amend Article 9 demonstrates a rightward trend within Japanese society as a whole. Shin described this trend as a type of collective suicide that draws other groups into death. According to her, the rightward trend of the United States promotes a similar trend in Japan, which, in turn, draws the silent support of the Japanese business community. This reflects the American Republican Party's links with the military industries and, in some ways, is reminiscent of Japanese militarism of the 1930s. Although Shin's opinions may be somewhat overstated, she does clarify things when she says: "If the economy follows the law of the jungle, politics must then take care of the weak to secure a balance. But the core of any rightward trend is that politics follows the law of the jungle, too." Here, Shin seems to provide a valid criticism of the present neo-liberal world system. From this perspective, Japan's rightward swing can be understood as an attempt to consolidate its interests, its markets, and its resources through the threat of possible military power.

As outlined above, for many people the pro-constitutional amendment movement is regarded as an attempt to change twenty-first-century Japan into a "militarily ordinary country" that could actively intervene on an international scale by using political and military power. This would seem to be a move away from a noninterventionist security policy with its aims of "the renouncement of war, of war potential, of belligerency." To its supporters, such a move is a statement of real independence and an example of freely exercised sovereignty. To its opponents, however, this movement is interpreted as a move toward militarism and rearmament.

Why do Japan's neighbors still distrust it so strongly? The main reason is that the Japanese government has still not sincerely expressed an apology for its past militarism. This also explains, to some degree, why Japan's efforts to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council have met with such resistance. Its neighbors believe that an empowered Japan would use its newfound power unwisely instead of using it to promote peace. This is truly an unfortunate state of affairs for Japan as well as for its neighboring countries.

Common Efforts for the Peace of East Asia

If Japan carries out the planned amendment of Article 9 without listening to voices from outside, it will surely put the peace of East Asia in serious jeopardy. And equally, if Japan wants to actively promote peace in the region, it should first respect the pacifist voices from within its own boundaries--and before anything else, it should sincerely apologize to its neighboring countries for its past imperialism.

As for its relationship with Korea, in 1992 Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa expressed regret for the issue of the "comfort women," a key element of Japan's past wrongdoings. And in 1993, Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa defined Japan's wars as "aggressive wars" and apologized for the colonization of its neighbors. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II, Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama recognized in the Diet that Japan's aggressive activities were "wrongdoings of national policy" and issued a statement of repentance for its colonial past. However, with a movement toward a more conservative and nationalist stance within modern Japanese society, attitudes have hardened, as seen in the call for an amendment of Article 9. Therefore, our first task for the building of a peaceful society in East Asia is to block any attempted amendment to Article 9 of Japan's Constitution.

Both Haruki Wada, professor emeritus of the University of Tokyo, and Professor Kang Sang-jung have proposed the idea of setting up a Northeast Asian Common House for Humanity. This proposal suggests that Japan, North Korea, and South Korea together form a nonnuclear peace area that will create a buffer zone between the nuclear powers of China, Russia, and the United States. This idea would also aim at dissolving the military tensions in the region and go about the construction of an area of peace and security. If the six-party talks on North Korea are successful, then it would seem that there is real hope for the formation of such a Northeast Asian Common House.

In such a situation we are faced with the question of what people of religion should do. What is the role of any ecumenical religious movement that has been organized for the creation and promotion of peace in Asia and the world? Any answer to such a question must stress cooperation between religious people and religious leaders in both Japan and Korea.

Despite the fact that established religions tend to be conservative in outlook, it should be noted that religious people in Korea have, over the years, played an active role in the democratic movement in Korea by resisting the military dictatorship from the 1960s onward. During that struggle, many people developed a deep interest in the peace of North-east Asia, and they went on to form strong links with religious pacifist movements in Japan. However, because many Korean religious leaders recognize the fact that a good number of Japanese religious movements are conservative in outlook, they have concluded that it is not easy to work in cooperation with such religious leaders.

Many differences exist between the religious cultures of Japan and Korea. For example, in Japan, after the establishment of the Peace Constitution, the principle of separation of religion and state was strictly adhered to. And again, in Korea there are no political parties founded by religious groups, but Japan has the Komei Party, strongly affiliated with the Soka Gakkai (a type of Nichiren Buddhism). This means that in the future, religious people of both countries need to make special efforts to understand each other better. A common effort for peace can be founded on this basis of mutual understanding. Such an effort might be based on the efforts of religious people to help solve problems of conflict caused by globalization in the twenty-first century. In short, a religious dimension is necessary in the project to promote international understanding and cooperation. A concrete example of this can be seen in the international cooperation system ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting), within which an interreligious dialogue group has been formed. Following this example, we too must develop deeper understanding and friendship between the religious circles of both Japan and Korea. In this way, we can better understand why Korean religious circles are watching with great interest the unfolding debate concerning Article 9 of Japan's Peace Constitution. For religious people, this debate is central to the development of a continued peace in Northeast Asia.