|
|
Change Your Life! |
Americans who drafted Japanese Constitution raise national debate in Parliament |
|
News
|
May 3, 2000 TOKYO, MAY 2 (AP) - In 1946, Richard Poole and Beate Sirota Gordon worked day and night as part of the U.S. Occupation to help write Japan's pacifist constitution after World War II and make sure the nation never embraced militarist aggression again.
More than a half-century later, they spoke Tuesday before a parliamentary committee grappling with possible revisions to the Japanese Constitution amid growing criticism, both at home and abroad, that the document is preventing Japan from doing its share in international peacekeeping.
The usually sparsely attended committee session was packed with legislators and about 250 people from the public - a sign of high interest in the issue.
But the message the two Americans delivered couldn't have been more different - Poole wanted change; Gordon opposed it.
Their divergent opinion echoed how Japan, too, remains deeply divided on the constitution, which is celebrated Wednesday as a national holiday called Constitution Memorial Day.
Written by the United States after Japan's defeat, the constitution was remarkably democratic for those times in guaranteeing human rights, sexual equality and religious freedom. It has never been updated and requires a national referendum for a revision.
The sticking point in the national debate is Article No. 9 that promises Japan will "forever renounce war" and never maintain armed forces.
Asian nations remain extremely wary of any attempts by Japan to strengthen its military clout. Any proposal to modify Article No. 9 is likely to meet protests from nations that suffered under Japan's brutal aggression.
Gordon, who wrote the section on women's rights in the constitution when she was only 22, argued against a criticism common among Japanese - that the constitution was foisted on Japan by the United States.
"Usually one doesn't force something on someone that's better than what one has. The Japanese constitution is superior to the U.S. Constitution," Gordon, who now lives in New York City, told the committee in fluent Japanese. "If it's a good constitution, then it's fine."
The draft, prepared by the U.S. Occupation behind closed doors, went through arduous and complex negotiations and rewriting with the Japanese government before it was passed in Japanese Parliament.
Poole, of McLean, Virginia, told the committee that Article No. 9 contradicts modern-day reality because Japan already has one of the world's largest militaries, although it is called the Self-Defense Forces.
"It just has a different name," said Poole, 81. "In the light of today's reality and the need for Japan to assume responsibilities in international affairs on much the same basis as other leading democracies, it strike me that the current ambiguity should be removed."
Japan has often been criticized for shirking its international responsibilities. Tokyo came under fire for contributing cash but no soldiers during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when other U.S. allies sent troops to drive Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
"For 50 years, Japan has been widening the interpretation of the constitution. But that has reached its limits," said Kimitaka Kuze, a ruling party legislator and a member of the committee.
Still, Yasuhisa Jinkoji, a law student attending the committee session, said he couldn't make up his mind after hearing from Poole and Gordon.
"The constitution was like a star of hope for the people, and maybe it should be protected," he said. "But some say it should be changed so we can be a nation that can defend itself."
|