News Analysis: Will Abe meet his Waterloo 1 yr after lifting ban on collective defense

Since Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office in late 2012, passed the Special Secrecy Law in late 2013 and reinterpreted the country's pacifist constitution to allow Japan's defense forces to exercise the right to collective self-defense and successfully extended his term by two more years, he is currently, however, experiencing some of the biggest hurdles in his revitalized premiership.

Despite two extreme cases of self-immolation in recent years to protest his decision to lift Japan's constitutional restraint over the notion of collective defense, Japanese academics recently filed a protest letter on the issue containing more than 1.65 million signatures to parliament amid constant rallies, urging Abe to step down, held almost every day around the Diet building and in downtown Tokyo.

The prime minister is trying to ram through parliament a series of security-related bills in the current Diet session, which has been extended by 95 days to further discuss the bills due to public pressure, in a move to lay the "legitimate ground" for the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to exercise the collective defense right to help defend Japan's allies even if Japan itself is not attacked.

Although the prime minister enjoys a comfortable majority in the bicameral Diet, the story dramatically changed as Abe met his Waterloo earlier last month in an upper house session in which all three Japanese prominent constitutional scholars recommended by Abe's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and opposition parties concluded that the security legislation package is " unconstitutional."

Japan's war-renouncing constitution stipulates that the country 's SDF should not help defend other countries and should not engage in armed conflicts outside Japan's territory.

However, the ruling LDP cited the 1959 controversial Sunagawa ruling by the country's Supreme Court insisting the court allowed Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense based on the Japan-U.S. defense treaty in its ruling which nullified a Tokyo District Court's judgment stating that a U.S. base in Japan violated the country's constitution.

But Yasuo Hasebe, professor of constitutional law at Waseda Law School who was recommended by the LDP to testify in the Diet session, pointed out that Japan's collective defense was not an issue at all in the Sunagawa case and he strongly slammed LDP politicians for "lacking in basic knowledge of law."

Public surveys showed that about 98 percent of Japanese experts on the country's constitution considered the security legislation as violating Japan's supreme law, and about 60 percent of Japanese nationals showed their opposition against the bills.

Meanwhile, more than 6,000 Japanese scholars signed an "Appeal by the Association of Scholars Opposed to the Security-related Bills" which says "the bills are in clear violation of Article 9 paragraph 1's prohibition against the use of force in combat."

"For over 60 years, successive administrations have understood that the exercise of collective self-defense violates the constitution, yet the Abe administration seeks to overturn this and pave the way for Japan's SDF to take part in American wars of aggression. Should this legislation pass, there is a very real danger that Japan could become a party to hostilities and the SDF an army of aggression in violation of international law," said the appeal.

However, Abe's LDP showed its arrogance towards the Japanese academics and hence contempt for the constitution with the ruling party's vice president Masahiko Komura saying that "if we had followed what they (constitutional experts) said, we wouldn't now have either the SDF nor the Japan-U.S. security treaty" and "it is highly doubtful that the peace and stability of Japan would have been maintained."

Such arrogance again angered Japanese media with some LDP lawmakers criticizing negative reports on the security bills by two Okinawa-based newspapers as being for blame for the bills unpopularity and recommended punishing the two newspapers.

Although the relevant lawmakers were warned and punished by the LDP and Abe also offered an apology, the scandal has provided the opposition camp with ammunition to attack the ruling coalition for threatening the sanctity of freedom of expression within the media.

On Tuesday, a 10-term veteran LDP lawmaker, Seiichiro Murakami, wept during a press conference denouncing Abe's effort to steamroll the bills through parliament as jeopardizing the country 's postwar pacifism.

"I feel that since the bills have been discussed in the Diet every day, the more problems and contradictions come out."

"I think the only way to realize the use of the right to collective self-defense is to amend the current pacifist constitution and to seek the vote of Japanese people. If the majority of the Japanese people agree with it, the government could go ahead, if they oppose it, the government should drop the plan," said Murakami, adding that Abe's subterfuge of reinterpreting the constitution to lift the ban on the right to collective defense is hollowing the constitution and undermines the principle rules of law.

"As a person who was educated under the postwar education system, I believe that the principle of pacifism, the sovereignty of people and respect of basic human rights should be something that absolutely can not be changed," Murakami wept.

Though Murakami is the only one in the LDP who publicly criticizes Abe's security policies, he says there are many moderate and liberal politicians within the LDP who are unhappy with the current state of the party.

After displeasing the country's academics, public and lawmakers within his own party, the question has been raised as to whether Abe will face his Waterloo in the near future in a presidential election within the LDP, and will he lose further points by offending neighboring countries by issuing a statement to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in which he will definitely highlight his historical revisionism.

The behavior of the LDP, including its lawmakers' remarks on the media, shows its arrogant belief that it can silence the opposition by sheer force of the party's grip on the Diet majority, Abe and other top leaders should reflect on how the party has been conducting itself since it returned to power, said the Japan Times in an editorial on Wednesday. Endi