image from http://www.dynasticrecords.com/imgs/misc/pnwj.jpg
"The best medicine is prevention"
One of the striking issue Japan have now is the question of bringing back the military in the big scene. It is known that the military was in a way "banned" with the power of Article 9 of Japan's constitution. This is becaus3e of the brutal experience "mistake" of the former Japanese government where Japan have caused tremendous damage not just to other countries but to its country as well. The Article 9 constitution was made to renounce war and promised that Japan will no longer use force in settling any international disputes. Moreover, it is believed that Militarized Japan will not serve any "good" purpose.
There are two sides of the issue. One side is the side of having the constitution change because of the rising power of China which is consider to be a threat and also of North Korea. While the other side is the side where the constitution must be retain because changing the constitution will just bring back the nightmares of World War II. Moreover, it is believed that using peaceful means in settling dispute is idealistic at the same time realistic so there is no need to bring back the support to the military just like before.
Being an Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Officer and a Reservist of our country I can feel sympathy for those who wanted to change the Article 9 of the Japan Constitution. Just like Japan, right now we are still trying to fight for bringing back ROTC in the main stream meaning having Mandatory ROTC once again. This is because from the emerging terrorist threats we do not know when will these groups will make a big step to take over our democracy and implement their Netopia called communism. Another thing here is that we do not know how large the enemy already is and if how strong the strength (military) and also if it is enough to manage this emerging threats.
Two years ago I was able to meet a British foreigner who i happened to have a conversation with,. He was shock to know that even though I am a female i engaged myself in the military service. He cannot understand why such "organization" exist. Furthermore, he told me that in London only Special groups are entitled to use guns and as for their police they are only entitled to bring tonfas. He explained that if there is no one to initiate violence then there will be no violence at all. The answer to violence is also violence,s o it will be a never ending one until one side will drop down the gun and settle things in an orderly manner, he added. This guy really has a point and this question got stuck in my head. Until I've enrolled in INTFILO under Sir Gojocco, where he explained that the idea of "every people is good" is inevitable and at the same time questionable. Because one thing is for sure, what one person may think may defer from other person's way of thinking so no consensus can be achieved if there will be no settlements and conversations to be made. My point here is that even though we would want to think that peace is better and it is attainable if we just stop practicing violence, we are still not sure of this for the fact that what we may think is right is not right for other people and may counter and even use the chance of incapability to take advantage of this matter.
The change of the constitution doesn't mean that Japan will already engage to war. People tend to assume on things that are haven't settled yet. Moreover, the strength of Japan is not yet enough to have an army of their own. In the issue of why does Japan kept on saying that they have lesser budget for the military if in fact the amount they're using is way bigger than China's budget is out of the question. It is because for one, even thought Japan has this budget for their military there are not enough man power to operate it meaning even if they have good technology if there is no one to manage it, then it will be useful.
Japan being a Pacifist country really did made a lot of changes to its country. There is no question on if the Japan will wage war to other countries, this is because they have learned their lesson and they know how cruel it is for something like World War II to happen again and they have proven their selves of managing in settling disputes through peaceful settlements.Hence, we do not know if this Pacifism be able to manage other countries to wage war over Japan and if this happens what defense Japan has?---for what i see,it will be a lousy defense. So a change of the constitution is really a need for this country for the future generations.
The failure of having a consensus if the constitution will be changed or not lies on the people. This kind of problem cannot be decided over night for once again it will change the history and in a way the culture of Japan. The argument of "afraid not to please the other sector" is a weak argument for it is not the sector they must prioritize but the country itself-Japan
No comments:
Post a Comment