Historical Dictionary of United States-Japan ... - Bakumatsu Films
Historical Dictionary of United States-Japan ... - Bakumatsu Films Historical Dictionary of United States-Japan ... - Bakumatsu Films
ARITA, HACHIRO – • 43 Yōsuke Matsuoka as foreign minister, showed more enthusiasm for a German alliance than for rapprochement with the United States. The Arita–Grew conversations thus ended without yielding any tangible results. See also PACIFIC WAR; WORLD WAR II. ARITA, HACHIRŌ (1884–1965). A graduate of Tokyo Imperial University’s law school, Arita entered the Foreign Ministry in 1909. After serving in China, Ottawa, and Honolulu, in 1918, Arita joined the Japanese delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. In the early post–World War I period, Arita assumed diplomatic posts in Thailand, Washington, and Peking, before being appointed head of the Foreign Ministry’s Asia Bureau in 1927. From this position, Arita led a powerful group within the ministry known as the Asia Faction. It included within its ranks such influential officials as Mamoru Shigemitsu, Masayuki Tani, and Toshio Shiratori. In October 1930, Arita was appointed minister to Austria and thus was out of the country when the Manchurian Incident occurred. He returned to Tokyo in May 1932 as vice foreign minister, only to resign the post 12 months later. He was appointed ambassador to Belgium in November 1933. At this time, he summarized his worldview in a letter to Shiratori: “We should proceed at once to drive Communist Russia out of China and then gradually exclude Britain, the United States, and other nations.” In other words, Arita firmly believed that Japan was to be the sole arbiter of China’s fate. He was appointed ambassador to China in February 1936, although following the February 26 Incident, he assumed the foreign ministership in the cabinet of Kōki Hirota (April 1936–February 1937). In this position, he strived to strengthen Japan’s political and economic control over China, with varying degrees of success. He subsequently served as foreign minister in the first Fumimaro Konoe cabinet (October 1938–January 1939), the Kiichiro Hiranuma cabinet (January 1939–August 1939), and the Mitsumasa Yonai cabinet (January 1940–July 1940). His record as foreign minister is ambiguous. On the one hand, he firmly opposed strengthening the existing Anti-Comintern Pact to make of it a full-fledged military alliance aimed at the United States and Great Britain. On the other hand, he put Washington on notice that Tokyo would brook no interference in its efforts to establish political hegemony over China.
44 • ARTICLE NINE ARTICLE NINE. The present Japanese constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of the Empire of Japan. It was promulgated on 3 November 1946 and went into effect on 3 May 1947. Article Nine of the Japanese constitution expressly stipulates pacifism, one of the three principles of the constitution. Article Nine alone forms Chapter Two of the constitution. Article Nine consists of three major elements: renunciation of war, no possession of military forces, and denial of the right of belligerency. The Japanese constitution is called a “peace constitution” because of the existence of the preamble to the constitution and Article Nine. Article Nine states, in part: “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. “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.” There are four major interpretations of Article Nine. 1. Japan renounces any act of war or the possession of military forces, including the right of self-defense. 2. Japan renounces any act of war or the possession of military forces for that purpose; however, Japan does not renounce its sovereign right of self-defense. 3. Both acts of war and military forces are permitted within the limits of self-defense. 4. Japan has the right to individual self-defense, but collective self-defense is unconstitutional. The Japanese government’s official interpretation of Article Nine has been changing. At first, the government took the view that the constitution prohibited any military forces and even war for selfdefense. However, as the Korean War precipitated Japanese remilitarization, the government took the stand that the constitution prohibited only aggressive war, excluding war for self-defense. Moreover, the Japan Self-Defense Forces constituted minimum “forces” not the “military forces” prohibited by the constitution. As for the right of collective defense approved by the United Nations, the Japanese government officially argues that Japan has this right but Japan shall not exercise it. See also JAPANESE CONSTITUTION.
- Page 33 and 34: xxxii • CHRONOLOGY signed. 1 July
- Page 35 and 36: xxxiv • CHRONOLOGY 1984 7 Februar
- Page 37 and 38: xxxvi • CHRONOLOGY 1992 9 January
- Page 39 and 40: xxxviii • CHRONOLOGY 2001 20 Janu
- Page 42 and 43: Introduction The most important bil
- Page 44 and 45: INTRODUCTION • 3 THE UNITED STATE
- Page 46 and 47: INTRODUCTION • 5 also increasingl
- Page 48 and 49: INTRODUCTION • 7 President Millar
- Page 50 and 51: ernment. Even the dour, conservativ
- Page 52 and 53: INTRODUCTION • 11 Japan, China, a
- Page 54 and 55: INTRODUCTION • 13 their hypotheti
- Page 56 and 57: in China were being threatened by t
- Page 58 and 59: INTRODUCTION • 17 recognize the v
- Page 60 and 61: INTRODUCTION • 19 the United Stat
- Page 62 and 63: however, required political stabili
- Page 64 and 65: INTRODUCTION • 23 forces in Japan
- Page 66 and 67: INTRODUCTION • 25 There was a gre
- Page 68 and 69: INTRODUCTION • 27 Foreign Ministr
- Page 70 and 71: The Dictionary - A - A BROADWAY PAG
- Page 72 and 73: ABSOLUTE SPHERE OF IMPERIAL DEFENSE
- Page 74 and 75: AGREEMENT ON RESTORATION OF JAPANES
- Page 76 and 77: AKIYAMA, SANEYUKI • 35 town of Ai
- Page 78 and 79: AMO - DOCTRINE • 37 American demo
- Page 80 and 81: ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE • 39 tain
- Page 82 and 83: ANTI-COMINTERN PACT • 41 1858. Pr
- Page 86 and 87: ATLANTIC CONFERENCE • 45 ASIAN CU
- Page 88 and 89: ATOMIC ENERGY BASIC LAW • 47 ATOM
- Page 90 and 91: BASEBALL • 49 and be educated in
- Page 92 and 93: BATTLE OF OKINAWA • 51 1942, the
- Page 94 and 95: BINGHAM, JOHN A. • 53 served as p
- Page 96 and 97: BOXER UPRISING • 55 quiring the p
- Page 98 and 99: BRYAN, WILLIAM JENNINGS • 57 BROT
- Page 100 and 101: BURMA ROAD • 59 the common people
- Page 102 and 103: CAPRON, HORACE • 61 verse populat
- Page 104 and 105: CHIANG KAI-SHEK • 63 Castle argue
- Page 106 and 107: CHRISTIANITY IN JAPAN • 65 of Mot
- Page 108 and 109: CHURCHILL, WINSTON S. • 67 Church
- Page 110 and 111: CONFUCIANISM • 69 population, whi
- Page 112 and 113: the extradition. When the Tokyo Hig
- Page 114 and 115: DEFENSE • 73 Mutual Security Agre
- Page 116 and 117: DEJIMA • 75 Keizai Dantai Rengoka
- Page 118 and 119: DOLLAR DIPLOMACY • 77 As it relat
- Page 120 and 121: DUTCH LEARNING • 79 Washington Un
- Page 122 and 123: ECONOMIC STABILIZATION BOARD • 81
- Page 124 and 125: FOREIGN EXCHANGE ALLOCATION SYSTEM
- Page 126 and 127: GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TR
- Page 128 and 129: GENERAL HEADQUARTERS/SUPREME COMMAN
- Page 130 and 131: GENTLEMEN’S AGREEMENT • 89 GHQ/
- Page 132 and 133: GOVERNMENT AID AND RELIEF IN OCCUPI
44 • ARTICLE NINE<br />
ARTICLE NINE. The present <strong>Japan</strong>ese constitution is an amendment<br />
to the Constitution <strong>of</strong> the Empire <strong>of</strong> <strong>Japan</strong>. It was promulgated<br />
on 3 November 1946 and went into effect on 3 May 1947. Article<br />
Nine <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Japan</strong>ese constitution expressly stipulates pacifism, one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the three principles <strong>of</strong> the constitution. Article Nine alone forms<br />
Chapter Two <strong>of</strong> the constitution. Article Nine consists <strong>of</strong> three major<br />
elements: renunciation <strong>of</strong> war, no possession <strong>of</strong> military forces, and<br />
denial <strong>of</strong> the right <strong>of</strong> belligerency. The <strong>Japan</strong>ese constitution is called<br />
a “peace constitution” because <strong>of</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> the preamble to the<br />
constitution and Article Nine.<br />
Article Nine states, in part: “Aspiring sincerely to an international<br />
peace based on justice and order, the <strong>Japan</strong>ese people forever renounce<br />
war as a sovereign right <strong>of</strong> the nation and the threat or use <strong>of</strong><br />
force as means <strong>of</strong> settling international disputes.<br />
“In order to accomplish the aim <strong>of</strong> the preceding paragraph, land,<br />
sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.<br />
The right <strong>of</strong> belligerency <strong>of</strong> the state will not be recognized.”<br />
There are four major interpretations <strong>of</strong> Article Nine.<br />
1. <strong>Japan</strong> renounces any act <strong>of</strong> war or the possession <strong>of</strong> military<br />
forces, including the right <strong>of</strong> self-defense.<br />
2. <strong>Japan</strong> renounces any act <strong>of</strong> war or the possession <strong>of</strong> military<br />
forces for that purpose; however, <strong>Japan</strong> does not renounce its<br />
sovereign right <strong>of</strong> self-defense.<br />
3. Both acts <strong>of</strong> war and military forces are permitted within the<br />
limits <strong>of</strong> self-defense.<br />
4. <strong>Japan</strong> has the right to individual self-defense, but collective<br />
self-defense is unconstitutional.<br />
The <strong>Japan</strong>ese government’s <strong>of</strong>ficial interpretation <strong>of</strong> Article Nine<br />
has been changing. At first, the government took the view that the<br />
constitution prohibited any military forces and even war for selfdefense.<br />
However, as the Korean War precipitated <strong>Japan</strong>ese remilitarization,<br />
the government took the stand that the constitution prohibited<br />
only aggressive war, excluding war for self-defense. Moreover,<br />
the <strong>Japan</strong> Self-Defense Forces constituted minimum “forces” not the<br />
“military forces” prohibited by the constitution. As for the right <strong>of</strong><br />
collective defense approved by the <strong>United</strong> Nations, the <strong>Japan</strong>ese government<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficially argues that <strong>Japan</strong> has this right but <strong>Japan</strong> shall not<br />
exercise it. See also JAPANESE CONSTITUTION.
Change language