Article 9 of the Japanese constitution is seen by many around the world as a worthy example that nations should try to follow if their real desire is to turn the world into a place without war and self-destruction. The present Japanese constitution, that came into effect in 1948, is the only one in the world that renounces war as a sovereign right of a nation, and rejects the right of belligerency of the state.
But this reality surrounding the constitution might also paint a somehow distorted picture that the country is an outright pacifist one, denouncing any kind of war effort anywhere in the world. Such assumption might have been true in the days when the war-renouncing constitution was promulgated sixty years ago.
The country, at the time, still had visible scars of a devastating war that forced many to rethink about the rationality of hostility and destruction, and, hence, it was not difficult for the occupation authorities of the United States to force upon a reluctant Japan a constitution that since then has been standing unique in the world.
At the same time, it was also in those earlier days that serious efforts were made, both on the part of Japan and also on the part of the country that was instrumental in forcing the unique constitutional provision forbidding the country not only to wage war in the future but also of even possessing a machinery considered synonymous with war efforts, to get rid of what some had termed as an "honest mistake" of an innocent time.
From time immemorial, war had always been a way of the rich, either to protect their acquired wealth or become even richer. Though there is no shortage of war initiatives in many of the poorest of the poor regions in the world, the rich have always played a significant role in such conflicts, and still are.
If they are not overtly involved in those wars, their economies are, directly or indirectly, because all those machineries of death that are in use are essentially made in rich countries and find their way to the poor conflict prone regions through "pragmatic" business transactions.
As a result, the desire to wage war with the idea of punishing those who dare to stand in their way had always been, and still is, the luxury of the rich. The reality of the present day world with US war machineries moving around the world is a stark reminder of that sad reality.
So, when a country becomes rich, its desire to grease the war machines increases significantly, too, keeping more or less the same pace.
Japan is a unique example of that reality in global politics. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution was essentially a product of the time when Japan was poor and battered. Now that Japan has once again become rich, much richer than what the country was during the turbulent war period, the desire to grease the war machineries too has witnessed a renewal.
The constitutional provision was first bypassed in the early 1950s when, after the outbreak of the Korean war, Japan was encouraged by the same United States that forced the war-renouncing article on the Japanese constitution, first to create a national police force and then to opt for an armed forces under the disguise of a funny and distorted name.
The end of the Cold War rivalry in international politics paved the way for Japan to allow its troops to venture overseas as part of the United Nations peacekeeping missions. Once again, the constitutional provision was tactfully bypassed by taking stopgap decisions in the Diet that allowed the dispatch of troops for a limited period.
Then, in the early twenty-first century, came the Iraq war, and Japan became a willing partner of that war effort of President George W. Bush. Japanese self-defense forces personnel were dispatched to Iraq where they remained for more than two years in a declared mission of reconstruction. These are all known facts, of which much has been reported in the international media.
What many around the world are not aware of is Japan's participation in America's war against her self-created enemies had started much earlier than Iraq. It was soon after 9/11 that President Bush declared war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and Japan was one of the first countries to express her willingness to participate in that war.
In November 2001, the Japanese Diet enacted a law that allowed Japan to dispatch self-defense forces ships to the Indian Ocean to help US-led war efforts in Afghanistan. Since Japanese policy makers still consider any direct involvement in wars as a violation of the constitutional provisions that cannot be easily justified, they are always in search of an easy way out.
In the case of the Indian Ocean, the way out was to provide free of charge fuel that is essential to run the war machineries in the Afghan operation. The free fuel supply attracted others to the mission, and even Pakistanis are sending their naval ships deep down to the south of the Indian Ocean to avail the opportunity of free supply of much desired fuel.
As the price of oil is maintaining its spiraling rise, the Japanese offer suddenly turned out to be a very lucrative one, and the Indian Ocean coalition was utterly disappointed when the upper house of the Japanese parliament rejected a bill in early November that would allow the country to continue the refueling mission. The government of Japan had no other option but to suspend the mission and call the ships back to the country.
The Japanese political arena has since then been involved in the debate of whether to give in to the pressure of Tokyo's most powerful ally and restart the mission, or to be defiant and hold an independent position.
For the administration of Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, this has been the first real test of authority since the coalition lost control of the upper house of the Diet in July. The coalition eventually resorted to Article 59 of the constitution that provides a mechanism to solve the dispute in case the two houses split on decisions concerning adoption of bills.
The article states that when the two houses vote against each other on a bill, the bill "becomes a law when passed a second time by the House of Representatives by a majority of two-thirds or more members present." The ruling coalition used that provision to overturn the decision of the House of Counselors and passed the bill using its numerical strength in the lower house.
The passage was the first time in 57 years that a bill defeated in the upper house was passed at the second attempt in the lower chamber.
The Ministry of Defense wasted no time in ordering the maritime self-defence forces to prepare for a restart of the refueling mission, and the US ambassador in Japan praised the effort as a sign of Japan's continued commitment to make the world a better place. As a result, Japan's silent war effort might have received a timely boost through the use of a complex mechanism.
But what the long-term impact of that controversial move will be is yet to be ascertained. The Fukuda administration's approval rating is already running low, and what seems to be sure is that the division at the Diet over an important issue will not be of any help in reversing the trend.
Mozurul Huq writes from Japan.