``Clear positioning'' ``Unnecessary'' Pros and cons of specifying the Self-Defense Forces in Article 9 - Interview with people with security experience - 80th anniversary of the promulgation of the Constitution

Eighty years have passed since the promulgation of the Japanese Constitution, and a proposed amendment to explicitly enshrine the Self-Defense Forces in the Constitution is becoming more realistic. What should we do about the relationship between the Self-Defense Forces and Article 9 of the Constitution, which stipulates the renunciation of war and non-retention of military forces? We spoke with Koji Yamazaki, former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top uniformed staff member of the Self-Defense Forces, and Kyoji Yanagisawa, former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary and former Chief Cabinet Secretary at the Defense Agency (at that time).

Constitutional revision debate intensifies, ruling party aims for next spring, cautious resistance - 2028 House of Councilors election a turning point?

Mr. Yamazaki stated that the security environment surrounding Japan has become extremely severe, and argued that there is a deep-rooted argument that the Self-Defense Forces are unconstitutional, especially in the legal community. ``It is necessary for each and every citizen to discuss the defense of this country and the organization for that purpose as their own,'' he said, adding, ``By writing the Self-Defense Forces in the constitution, the position of the Self-Defense Forces will become clear and the morale of its members will increase.''

On the other hand, regarding the reason why the Constitution has not been amended for 80 years, the interpretation that the Self-Defense Forces are constitutional has become entrenched, and many people have come to view the Self-Defense Forces favorably. He also noted that the hurdle required for a proposal to revise the constitution is ``two-thirds of both houses of the House of Representatives,'' and ``I hope that the Constitution will be amended after thorough public debate,'' so that the Self-Defense Forces will not be called an organization that violates the constitution.

In response, Yanagisawa pointed out, ``Currently, there are almost no people who say that the Self-Defense Forces violate the Constitution, and the question (whether it is unconstitutional or constitutional) has already been settled.'' The role of the Self-Defense Forces is stipulated in laws such as the Self-Defense Forces Act and the National Security Act, and he says, ``Even if we specify the Self-Defense Forces in the Constitution, nothing will change, and if nothing changes, there is no need to specify it clearly.''

Regarding the view that the SDF's alleged unconstitutionality will affect the morale of its members and the ability to secure personnel, he says, ``We have been operating under the current constitution (with the current constitution), and the reason why we are not attracting more members is due to changes in the thinking of young people. Morale is still sufficient, so there is no logical connection (to the constitutional amendment).'' He stated that the role of the Self-Defense Forces would not change legally even if it was specified in the constitution, and that if the constitution were to be amended, it would be necessary to clearly state what it is that would be changed by clearly stating it, and then question the people's faith in it.