Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGlobal Article 9 Campaign to Abolish War Launched in Japan
ARTICLE 9: JAPANESE CONSTITUTION: Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
After World War II, the victorious allied powers, implementing a transition to democracy in Japan, required Japan to forego any future aggressive military action by including a provision in their new Constitution to renounce war and the threat or use of force. But by 1950, following the outbreak of the Korean War, when US General MacArthur ordered the establishment of a 75,000-strong Japanese National Police Reserve equipped with US Army surplus materials, numerous assaults have been made on the integrity of Article 9. By 1990, Japan was ranked third in military spending after the US and the Soviet Union, until 1996 when it was outspent by China and dropped to fourth place. Today, the US-Japanese joint Theater Missile "Defense" which in reality poses an "offensive" threat to China, as well as the US military bases in Japan, and other US-Japanese military cooperation have further undermined the spirit of Article 9. Presently, the Bush Administration is creating an all out assault on the peace constitution, pressuring the Japanese government to amend Article 9 in order to permit Japanese soldiers to serve in the wars of the Empire, providing fresh cannon fodder for battles in Iraq and Afghanistan and other imperial adventures yet undeclared.
The citizen activists of Japan are resisting the US led assault on their beloved peace constitution. This May in Tokyo, at the launch of a Global Article 9 Campaign to Abolish War, organized by the Japanese NGO Peaceboat, 15,000 people showed up for the first day's plenary and over 3,000 people had to be turned away from the filled-to-capacity convention center, causing the organizers to set up an impromptu program outdoors for the overflow crowd where keynote speakers, including Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, rallied the participants to call on their government to preserve their constitution's provision for the renunciation of war. This unprecedented turnout to uphold Japan's constitution, launched a Global Article 9 Campaign to Abolish War with more than 22,000 people attending the three day meeting in Tokyo, and 8,000 more gathering in Hiroshima, Osaka, and Sendai to organize for peace. More than 40 countries were represented at the various plenaries and workshops with over 200 international visitors, which examined opportunities to reinforce and expand Article 9 in a new 21st century context. Article 9 was promoted not only as a disarmament measure for all the nations of the world, but as a means of redistributing the world's treasure, now wasted at the rate of over one trillion dollars per year to feed the murderous war machine, using those funds to restore the health of the planet and end poverty on earth.
One of the most moving and inspiring presentations was the shared experiences of a young Iraqi Sunni soldier, Kasim Turki, who quit fighting in the middle of a fierce battle in Ramadhi and has now organized a team working to rebuild schools and hospitals in Iraq, joined by Aidan Delgado, an American Iraq war vet, who also laid down his arms in the middle of a battle in Iraq and took conscientious objector status, refusing to ever kill again. The two young soldiers and former enemies have become friends, sharing experiences and urging the abolition of military power and war. Their presentations were welcomed resoundingly by the participants who were inspired and moved by their fierce devotion to peace.
Although cruel wars have been common throughout human history, there has been nothing like the enormous speed up of destructive war, fueled by science and technology, suffered in this last century, starting with 20 million deaths after World War I and ending with well over 100 million deaths by the end of the 20th Century -- the horrors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda -- only a few of the tragic catastrophes rendered by the instruments of war. Yet it was only in 1969, less than 40 years ago, that humanity landed on the moon and, for the first time saw the image of our fragile, beautiful blue planet, floating in space, giving us a new perspective of a unified world, sharing this small spaceship earth. It could only have been a profound influence on our consciousness that is bound to help us shift from the paradigm of war and technological domination and control to a more balanced nurturing interdependent vision for the health of earth's inhabitants in an expanded understanding of Article 9.
The US Constitution was imperfect at its drafting, failing to consider slaves as people or to recognize women's right to vote. Evolving consciousness led to the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of women. Similarly, it is hoped, by the many participants who gathered in Japan, that a transformed earth consciousness will perfect the original limited vision of the "Renunciation of War" infusing the Article 9 initiative for a global effort to stop all violence on the planet, not only for Japan, but for the whole earth. We discussed not only the violence of wars in the traditional meaning but in an expanded context of destruction against all living things and the very living systems of our planetary home itself -- or as Professor Keibo Oiwa at Meiji Gakuin University characterized it in the workshop, "Linking Environment and Peace", a Pax Ecologia.
And as we met in Tokyo, half way around the world in Berlin, only a few days earlier, Germany convened a meeting of sixty nations to launch a Campaign for IRENA, an International Renewable Energy Agency, see www.irena.org, to facilitate new reliance around the world on the safe, abundant, free energy of the sun, wind, and tides, foregoing resource wars and food shortages, currently plaguing the earth's people as a result of a non-sustainable out of date energy regime of fossil, nuclear and biofuels. Irene, the Greek word for peace adds a unique resonance to this critical initiative to shift our dependence on energy to benign sources, plentifully distributed around our planet for all to access peacefully. Support for the establishment of IRENA was issued in the final statement of the Article 9 conference to the participants at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference which convened at the same time in Geneva to address issues of nuclear disarmament and proliferation.
Currently, only one other country, Costa Rica, has a constitutional provision similar to Japan's to abolish war. At the close of the conference, Carlos Vargas, representing Costa Rica, invited the organizers to his country for a follow up planning meeting to expand the Article 9 Campaign to make peace provisions a reality in every national constitution around the world. For more information, see http://www.article-9.org/en/index.html ; http://www.peaceboat.org/english/index.html
Alice Slater, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
36 Comments so far
Show AllMany have presented vey good points, but consider this, if an agressor nation, or group, should attack those who are abiding by Article 9, the non-agressor, using available technologies, could simply disable the weapons systems of the attacker. Whether, one accepts the reality of UFO's or not, there have been many credible reports that that is exactly what they do.
Just food for thought.
Johanan
a link to sign the Global 9
https://s107.secure.ne.jp/%7Es107017/en/support/index.html
Who says that the US is not inciting the criminal gangs to commit violence within their own communities? This is an old British colonial trick.
"An invading nation(in our case illegally) by international law is responsible for the safety security and well being of the civilian populace."
But aren't blamed for the actions of criminals. You blame the criminals.
"It is all on our heads. An invading nation(in our case illegally) by international law is responsible for the safety security and well being of the civilian populace."
Last time I discussed this point, no one was able to produce the international law that said this. Nothing about the invasion *compells* the rival gang groups to kill civilians while they try to kill each other. In any case, even if responsible for security that's a far cry from "causing" the deaths.
"you can look at figures from many other unbiased agencies that show a minimum of 600,000 iraqi deaths "
Why is the World Health Organization most recent study biased?
"even the CPA admits to about 3-400,000."
Where do they admit this exactly? I think you need to check that.
"All parties(except the US and it puppets) feel that violence would be significantly less, if not nonexistent, if the US were to withdraw"
Who exactly says this? And why would the rival gang violence decrease with a withdraw? That just doesn't make sense.
jakenewton:
It is all on our heads. An invading nation(in our case illegally) by international law is responsible for the safety security and well being of the civilian populace.
That includes providing and amintaining an infrastrucure with utilities, jobs, food, etc.
Even if you disagree with the Lancet study, you can look at figures from many other unbiased agencies that show a minimum of 600,000 iraqi deaths attributable - even the CPA admits to about 3-400,000. Your last sentence is a canard.
All parties(except the US and it puppets) feel that violence would be significantly less, if not nonexistent, if the US were to withdraw
Now lets talk about the millions of refugees - both internal and external which are unrecognized as such by US and the CPA - ergo no support.
"invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq in 2003, to date resulting in over 1.2 million civilian deaths directly attributable to the invasion? "
*Not* a fact. The so called Lancet Study has a lot of problems and is hardly the last word on the subject. And any of the violence that is a result of the rival gangs vieing for power is certainly *not* directly related to the US invasion.
War is obsolete.
My 99% was just a shortcut for "majority" because I'm sure the majority of ordinary citizens of the world are for peace.
After 9/11 I was all for going after those responsible just like everyone else. But I actually believed it would be a totally new kind of war, using intellegence, moles, and specially trained ground troups, all working together. That we would use the old way was inconceivable to me, because how, in God's name, can you bomb a belief? Wasn't I a stupid idiot!
The Japanese penchant for hypocrisy knows no bounds. They have been violating their own "ant-war" constitution blatantly for over half a century.
Japan's "Self Defense Force" is just a euphemism for military. With a population of 125 million, it has a full-fledged military with 1/4 million troops.
Why do people fall for using obvious propaganda like "Self Defense Force"? So, for a self defese force, in target practice in boot camp, do Japanese soldiers only learn to shoot guns in self-defense? Or do they only learn how to protect themselves from being attacked with a banana or other fresh fruit? (sorry - Monty Python reference)
"As of January 2007, the Defense Agency will become the Ministry of Defense, with independent status in the Cabinet.... This is not merely a symbolic move for the 240,000-strong military force with the fourth-largest military budget in the world."
http://japanfocus.org/products/topdf/2302
Attributing the Article 9 movement to Peaceboat is like attributing the Internet to Al Gore. That's nice that the writer of this article knows about this little organization of Japanese and non-Japanese. But does it really do the heavy lifting of peace activism in Japan?
perhaps if enough money and research was put into developing advanced diplomatic skills we might find that international disputes are just as likey to be solved without the use of force as with it...working on the principle that sooner or later the disputing parties tend to end up sat round a table shuffling bits of paper as a rule anyway...who knows we might learn something new...at the very least seeing as diplomacy is a skill even perhaps an art form it stands to reason that it is possible to enhance those skills...but everything from an argument in a car park to two countries argueing the temptation is allways there to just beat the heck out of the other guy..
it's "monkey politics" and is as old as the human race.. even older in fact
wether it's a fight for the right to mate or display of dominance..or an all out "war" for an especaily juicy fruit tree..the things still pretty much the same...what say we start living up to our own ideals for a change and actualy develop "sentient human politics" or would that be risking losing the right to mate and that especaily juicy fruit tree???
we dress it up as this ..or disguise it as that ..or convince ourselves it's the other...but it's exactly the same thing.....
Methinks the article leaves out a rather glaring example:
"there has been nothing like the enormous speed up of destructive war, fueled by science and technology, suffered in this last century, starting with 20 million deaths after World War I and ending with well over 100 million deaths by the end of the 20th Century — the horrors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda..."
Or how about the United States of America's illegal invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq in 2003, to date resulting in over 1.2 million civilian deaths directly attributable to the invasion?
Oh, don't forget to mention the great U.S. now. We are the largest terrorists and murderers in the world. The number of innocent Iraqis we have killed in only 5 years dwarfs the 300,000 we killed by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we go another 5 years, we will have surpassed Hitler's extermination of 6 million Jews.
Seig Heil!
the days of developed nations going to war are over, on account of the threat of nuclear counterattack. There has never been a direct confrontation between nuclear powers. Developed nations maintain conventional forces despite the total adequacy of the nuclear deterrent given any existential threat simply because having a large conventional army allows them both to better control their own populations and to exert control over the politics of nukeless foreign governments. Nuclear powers may or may not agree to some feel good world treaty as a PR move, but note that the US hasn't declared war since WW2. Hell, sensible Americans can't even get their neighbors on-board with simply REDUCING our insane level of military spending, let alone foster agreement on eliminating it almost entirely.
The people here really have lost touch with reality on this one. The numbers in America would be more like 20-80 against. Yes, we really are that fucking insane.
Jesus, the example is a good one. I have the feeling the hostility towards israel expressed by the "progressive" community is what's keeping you from seeing this. You do seem to admit the arab countreis had already taken aggressive steps though, so I don't see what the issue here is.
Keep in mind I am not necessarily talking about "pre-emptive" war. There might be an example when a country intervenes in an already-occuring conflict, such as Britian's enterance into WWII to defend poland. It seems to me this Japanese idea would make this sort of intervention impossible.
This Global Article 9 is a great idea. We all have to denounce war in order to build global trust. Once built, it becomes a strong barrier to penetration by upstart warmongers. The most effective defense policy is when a nation respects the rights and boundaries of others by a universalist ethic, and keeps the minimum necessary military preparation in the event another nation violates such rights and boundaries. The universalist ethic is the foundation of global consensus, trust, and peace. The universalist ethic draws the line between offense and defense which is so obscured today in the "Good ol USA". Those who proclaim that we will never banish war from this world are the ones who refuse to practice universalism.
Jewbacca claims that the 1967 Six-day War provides a just example of a pre-emptive attack. It is, in fact, an overly simplified and therefore misleading example.
Before the IDF launched its attacks, Egypt and other Arab nations had already taken overtly hostile actions toward Israel. Egypt had amassed weapons and troops on its border with Israel. The IDF just beat them to the punch.
Later, the claim is made that "examples" of pre-emptive war have been provided but, other than the 1967 example (which is not a good one), there are none.
But that point aside, I would love to see some examples of war being "beneficial." After all, in any conflict, both sides consider themselves to be "the good guys.
jj
Kitty, absolutely, the japanese are badass. But lets say they are in a situation where waiting to be attacked will likely cost them their country, a situation similar to israel's in 1967... should they just sit back and wait?
We don't ever, as a country or a people, want to take an option of aggressive attack completely off the table. I think we can all \find historical exmaples of war being beneficial, or being just, even when it is started by the "good guys". After all, kitty, would you not be happy if the arabs all of a sudden invaded israel?? haha
Big, I am hypothesizing. I don't think china is about to attack japan, I'm just giving examples where an aggressive war might be the best option for them. I assure you I am not trying to ressurect militant shintoism!
Ghawar: 99% isn't good enough. 1% of bad apples is enough to spoil the show and require the intervention of "the good guys".
So Japan is ripe for invasion then. Seems odd.
wilmoor June 2nd, 2008 12:55 pm "In every nation on earth, probably 99% of the citizens would be for a world-wide Article 9."
I very much like this new idea from Japan, much better than their hell ships.
So very many times I encounter the hopeful writings of a good-hearted blogger who thinks she or he (s/he) has found an answer, a way out of violence and ignorance and toward peace and prosperity. They lay out the argument, and it begins, " If everyone would…" but of course the trouble is that everyone is never going to agree on anything.
But here, from the Japanese, we have a proposal that has some very good and I believe very powerful attributes:
1- 99% of the people, as wilmoor notes, are already for this idea. As ever, not everybody is in favor of this peace plan, but, trust me, 99% is enough to take over the world. Fifty percent would be unstoppable. Maybe this is the idea we've been waiting for. ( The colored bandanas didn't catch on, but maybe this will. )
2- This idea is global. And, somehow, it's as exciting almost as the Haight Improvement Plan. Maybe it will catch on - globally. I'm convinced that there's really nothing that Americans alone can do to tame their government and bring peace, and a that global movement is essential for change and hope. This is definitely global.
3- It's not an abstraction - it's a written statement, a document that you can sign. Either you're for the Article, or you're for war - to sorta put it into Bushspeak. It could not be simpler: signing the document unites you with a billion others, and it does to the warmongers what they have for so long done to us: it isolates them, separates them from decent society, and it stigmatizes them for their violence and ignorance.
I'll resurrect the bandana idea here, except let's make it just an ordinary button - anybody can wear a button. It says you're for global article 9, that you signed the paper. And if you don't have your button on, well, then I guess you're a killer and a dope.
Some say the idea is inadequate because there's no money in it. The obvious flaw in this criticism is that the 99% of the people who want peace are not asking for money - it's only that other 1% who are behind the war movement - who want the money - the rest of us want peace.
The world conscience and subconscious are ready and primed for the right unifying idea. Just how much longer are people willing to tolerate war and Bushism? The end of warmongering and genocide end is near!
Billions of us are unhappy with war and want peace. As this global mentality grows, there will soon appear that idea that sparks the global movement for peace. I feel it is imminent, and maybe this is it. Is there anywhere to go from here but up? PEACE! NOW!
Jewie, it's us/them the minute you hypothesize an enemy and express a need to keep their butt in kicking range. China? They're also not big on being able to whup anyone's butt, but as kitty_tc says of Japan, they can defend their borders. Every war is the result of someone's choice. They may have been "them", they may have been "us", but somebody, somewhere, has to decide that a war is the best available option, or they would not start. You live your life as though someone might be out to get you? Japan has learned a thing or two the hard way, all you seem to be looking for is to send them back.
Jew Baka (now more appropriate than ever):
The Japanese have a Self Defense Force. They are not meek or defenseless in the event of attack. They are, however, politically banned from starting wars or making attacks on other nations. It'd be a good idea if all nations around the world adopted similar laws, and mutual defense pacts, and then those few who would not get with the program and start wars would find themselves in trouble very quickly.
Why in the world is my comment awaiting moderation? Did I fart or somethin'?
Big, who said anything about "us or them"? Who said anything about "rara, go team go"? That's not where I am coming from at all. If Japan, or any other one country, goes along with something like this, then it simply allows aggressor nations to do what they do without sanction. How does this serve peace? Peace doesn't mean sitting on your ass while the violent and aggressive take over the world, yet this is all you lefties seem hell-bent on accomplishing.
I am not "in favor of war" in and of itself, I am in favor of not allowing bullies to do what they do without sanction.
Sorry but I wouldn't look to Peaceboat to get anything done. It is a talkshop. They bring in young foreign kids to talk about peace but that's about it. There are other organizations in Japan that do get things done - none of them are NGO's since NGO's were only allowed in Japan in the late 1990s. Healthcare workers who fought against the banning of the pill and such are ones to look towards to get things done in Japan.
Article 9 isn't being followed in Japan anyhow. I am in favour of it's intent, but under this pacifist law Japan has amassed the 4th largest military in the world. They've been breaking article 9 ever since the US imposed it on them.
Jewbacca_Returns June 2nd, 2008 1:21 pm ..Allow me to put this quite succinctly...GO FUCK YOURSELF!
I was gonna quibble with wilmoor's math... Then along comes Jewbacca to make my point for me. Sorry, wilmoor, but as you can see, there's this whole crop of pig-headed self-righteous "get the bad guys before they get you", "those who pound their swords into plowshares will wind up plowing for those who don't" ignoramuses who neither profit from war, nor bother to even read the article, nor have to fight a war, these people, unfortunately, make your 99% impossible. Like little cheerleaders, go team, go team, crush em all and go for a beer! Yay!
Altruistic. Commendable. Doomed. There is no money in peace under our current economic paradigm. Until we shift, the forces of international financial interests will continue to wage war.
This is so, unbelieveably, unspeakably stupid. So if China starts gearing up for an attack on Japan, I take it Japan will just sit there? I take it if Japan is targetted by some foreign terrorist group, they will just sit there?
This is the kind of thing that sounds good to people who are entirely emotional, and completely unable to reason logically or reflect upon their own beliefs...
In every nation on earth, probably 99% of the citizens would be for a world-wide Article 9.
Naturally, it's that 1% with all the wealth from wars and such that will make sure it never happens.
The Global Article 9 Campaign will immediately be scorned by the global corporate community in the same way as those groups currently pushing for action on global climate change have been.
As long as those corporations involved in killing and other related technologies stand to profit from war there will be war. These institutions have learned that they can always and easily stir up conflicts between various populations based on ethnic and religious differences.
I applaud the Global Article 9 effort and will do what I can to support it. Its supporters may have the most uphill battle in the history of mankind.
jj
The CPA was disolved in 2004.
"Who says that the US is not inciting the criminal gangs to commit violence within their own communities?"
You can "say" anything you want. How about evidence?
"History cannot be different but we must be different. . . The idea of violence as the midwife of history has exhausted itself . ."
-- Aleksandr Yakovlev, as quoted by David Remnick in his book Lenin's Tomb (page 300)
>In every nation on earth, probably 99% of the citizens >would be for a world-wide Article 9
So that would mean that crimes of rape, child abuse, spousal abuse and other acts of perpetrated violence are committed only by the other 1%?
Sorry, I don't buy it. Far too many people who think violence is perfectly acceptable behavior.
>>Curmudgeon - An invading nation(in our case illegally) by international law is responsible for the safety security and well being of the civilian populace.
That includes providing and amintaining an infrastrucure with utilities, jobs, food, etc.<<
Don't cite the Geneva Conventions here... Please please please... Give us some treaty or document that states this. All I can find, and I have looked for 20 some years, is this:
"Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' " Nothing about restoring services, jobs, whatever.
>>kalia - The Japanese penchant for hypocrisy knows no bounds. They have been violating their own "ant-war" constitution blatantly for over half a century.<<
I am really sorry I missed all the Japanese invasions since 1950. I have been looking all my life and feel a little as though I missed out on something. Was there that horrible invasion of China? ... no ... Did they move into Thailand? ... no ... There is nothing wrong in keeping a small defense force which Japan has done.