【PART 3】 The Mystery of the Security Treaty Village (1): The Showa Emperor and the Constitution of Japan

 

【43】 Simplifying the truth of the Constitution of Japan

 

As just described, the truths about GHQ drafting Japan’s Constitution and the motive for it are clear. But there is still confusion, partly because of the “beautiful double structure” set up by the Showa Emperor, but additionally because of a psychological problem.

So, “the truth of the Constitution of Japan” simplified to the maximum would consist of two points:

(1) The occupation army wrote it and imposed it on Japan behind closed doors.

(2) Most of the contents (especially the article about human rights) were too good to be written by Japanese.

These points are the cause of the “big twist” in the understanding of the Constitution of Japan. Here’s why:

They actually happened as historical fact, but they logically contradict. They cause a so-called “cognitive dissonance,” which means it is almost impossible to accept them both at the same time.

Logically, if (1) is true, (2) should be wrong. It is not only outrageous but unreasonable that an occupation army wrote the other country’s constitution behind closed doors and forced it on that country as “a good thing.”

And vice versa, if (2) is true, (1) should be wrong. Why would such a good thing have to be written behind closed doors and imposed on the people

It is the leftists such as the Communist party, Kenzaburo Oe, and Hisashi Inoue who have appreciated (2) and completely denied (1).

While rightists, such as Prime Minister Abe and Shintaro Ishihara (former governor of Tokyo), have emphasized (1) in order to deny (2) completely (and thus to change it, since they are displeased with the “excess” of the people’s human rights and seek to reduce them).

Of course, both are wrong. We should admit (1) as historical fact and use (2) as a challenge to create a constitution better than what we have. In other countries, that would be a matter of common sense.

The tragedy about the Constitution at the moment is that we have social groups in Japan seeking only to “make it worse”: one group trying to modify it to “cut human rights down” and another insisting that we “never lay a finger on it.” There is no group to “make it better.” I think it is because of a fear of what the reality of a change would be: that it would definitely be worse. Contrary to the Constitution, for example, the U.S. Forces for the past 60 years have had a desire to use “Japanese military” that can engage in war under their control, as you can see from a secret treaty that I will explain later (see PART 5).

Therefore, it is also true that a myth of protecting the Constitution by “not laying a finger on it” has been a valid tactic to prevent such a “path to war.” But we cannot put the problem off any longer. On July 1, 2014, the Abe administration finally forced reinterpretation of the Constitution, “authorizing the use of the right to collective defense,” while previous administrations of the Liberal Democratic Party refrained voluntarily from this. And he did so without invoking the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty or the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). If this new approach continues, it will not be possible to prevent Japan from engaging in aggressive wars in foreign countries with the U.S.

What is needed now is to rewrite the Constitution so that we cannot engage in such warfare. If we are against nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, we can forbid them in the Constitution. Any other county except Japan does so. It is about time for us to have a fundamental discussion based on the past history and true facts.