Editorial: The Armed Forces Again Become Ridden
The Koizumi Government Plotting Emergency Legislation  

The Koizumi cabinet at last submitted a legal framework for war contingencies-related bill to the Diet.

The establishment of legal framework for war contingencies was earnest wish of power of Japanese capital. Because, hereby Japan can fix the appearance of "a nation" anyhow.

According to the saying of power of capital, Japan "has not formed the body as a state" till now. At first there was "the Peace" constitution which forbade war act and keeping of armed forces, and it has removed the basic condition to become independent as a state.

However, this problem has been overcome by "Interpretational Amendment." In other words, they became able to bring up and keep the powerful Self-Defense Force namely the armed forces by "interpreting" the constitution as not denying the "armed forces for self-defense." (There can not be such a thing. It is "interpretation" to the end, and fact is another.)

But it is only it. When "military aggression by foreign countries" or some war broke out, the system to handle and to act real time as "a state" is not "set" at all. Therefore, we cannot so much as say in compliment that it is perfect existence as a state.

Koizumi repeats that there "is no sorrow if there is preparation" at full blast, and it is just a problem of the "preparation." States without preparation are not and cannot be exist.

If we own armed forces, it will be in a problem in the next stage how to make the armed forces more effective and useful. Even if we own armed forces, such a thing is only an useless thing if it is not beneficial in the case of emergency.

Therefore, it is just a necessity that the power of capital have begun to yell to prescribe legally the system to cope with "military aggression by foreign countries" "beforehand."

They explain this by a strange expression as "the Self-Defense Force will be a illegal existence and must act illegally at the time of emergency if we will not make the system of legal framework for war contingencies."

However, we find that there are only "illegal" contents when we watch the contents of legal framework for war contingencies. For example, to limit private rights, the Self-Defense Force behave "extra-legally", local governments must abide by government's order.

In other words, the government and the armed forces want to "legally" guarantee their "extralegal" and arbitrary act. They want to enable autocracy "legally", to cover and decorate it with clothes of "legality". They say that it is inevitable because it is a moment of crisis.

However, is it really so?
If the thing named "aggression of a foreign country" is really unjust and deglorifying Japan to the position of "a colony", the national resistance and fight will be unavoidable. Besides, this national resistance will be voluntary and independent, and not such thing forced by government.

In such a case, what kind of "legal" control and compulsion of government is necessary? Where appears the nation who does not let you use his residential land or farm land for resistance, does come out the local governments which cooperate to "enemy" one after another?

In case of World War II, the governing classes were rather accommodating with "the enemy", the governing classes of fascism, and they had to be regulated and controlled in another meaning.

Therefore, it does not in case of "military aggression of a foreign country" but only in case of war that the Japanese governing classes do for own imperialistic ambition and profit, war of reaction that the legal framework for war contingencies is necessary. Because war is done against most profit of the nation in such a case, restraint or regulation --legal or extralegal-- for the nation is not avoidable.

The legal frameworks for war contingencies is needless, because, in case of "unjust aggression by foreign countries, national fights would develop naturally and nobody would disturbs the Self-Defense Force and government even if there is not legal frameworks for war contingencies.

Because, the legal framework for war contingencies would become legal system to oppress the nation if bourgeoisie would begin war of reaction, and it would become nothing except harmful and hard to allow to working class.

Besides, it is assumed that a new law includes the case when a military dispute at the Japanese outskirts might develop into military attack to Japan.

However, about "a peripheral posture", we already have peripheral posture security reservation law and Self-Defense Act, and there is U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, too. There is no reason to settle a legal framework for war contingencies on "an assumption" of such a case.

The Japanese bourgeois state has not merely appeared as "a major economic power" but has "grew up" the state which had powerful armed forces, in other words, has appeared "imperialist" state in dozens of years after the war.

And it has arrived at the stage to consider "seriously" how to move and use these armed forces now.
It is just the reason if one own an edged tool and it become a problem how to use and take advantage of it.

Thus, the maneuver of legal framework for war contingencies legislation symbolizes reactionarize and imperialistize of Japanese bourgeoisie.

However, workers are not afraid of such things at all, and will crush this new maneuver of power of capital determinedly and will accomplish their fight of anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism till the last.

(Translated by Yoshi)