There has been a long-standing debate in Japan, over a significant article included in the Japanese Constitution: Article 9. This clause states that the nation cannot turn to war as a means to settle international disputes, effectively and legally meaning that Japan is a pacifist state. Of course as we know, America occupied Japan for about 7 years following World War II, and in this time the US forces wrote up the new Japanese Constitution to ensure its former enemy would not be able to repeat its history of military imperialism. Essentially, America won the war and forced pacifism on its enemy to ensure Japan would never be able to threaten the US again. But now, in an increasingly hostile geopolitical scene, and after more than 70 years of seemingly unquestioned pacifism in Japan, there is a growing debate over Article 9 and its limitations on Japan’s independence.

I, like most people I’d assume, feel conflicted about the discussion. On one hand, Japan has a long history of brutal military imperialism, so a pacifist Japan feels more safe in terms of global politics. The less nations with the ability to create nuclear weapons is better for the world right now. However, I think if the constitutional article is getting in the way of the government’s ability to properly protect and defend its population, a change to the constitution is justified. It is true that geopolitics are tense all over the world right now, and becoming more uncertain every day. North Korea, for instance, is one nation that is particularly hostile right now, as they have been testing missiles around the East Asian region. The Korean-Japanese relationship is not exactly a peaceful one, and the Japanese population has the power to change the nation’s military stance if the majority ends up feeling like this is necessary.