Japan: Abe may change the pacifist constitution

The Japanese premier, Shinzo Abe, is the true winner of early elections in Japan; its ruling electoral coalition has won the majority of seats, including the fragmentation of the opposition, which has not been able to find commonly agreed strong enough points to counter the winning coalition. The Party of Hope, with a program similar to the premier, which had, according to polls, the greatest chances of countering Abe's victory, did not achieve the expected results and to advance was the liberal Left, which is placed on opposite positions to those of the government, especially in connection with the introduction of constitutional changes and the return of the use of nuclear energy. This result indicates the presence of the growth of a compact opposition force in the country's desire for militarization and, therefore, a split in the Japanese political fabric, could lead to a growth in polarization. The goal of the Japanese prime minister was to win the two-thirds of the lower house, which, together, to the similar majority in the House of Councilors, allow the government to carry out the revision of the Japanese constitution, drawn up in 1947 under US supervision and characterized by some prohibitions for the armed forces of the country, which have decreed the name of the pacifist constitution. At present, the fundamental law does not allow Japan to operate and intervene, with its army, in the international war theater, even if involved in possible allied countries conflicts; the only possibility of present intervention is that of legitimate defense. Certainly, the changed geostrategic conditions of the region have influenced Abe's view of a need for a reprehensible: to turn the Japanese self-defense forces into a true army; however, these instances were already present before the current developments and the country's nationalist feelings seem to have taken advantage of the right opportunity to modify the constitutional charter. However undeniable remain the two main reasons for the transformation of the armed forces: first, the activities of North Korea, which has repeatedly materially threatened Japan with the launch of rockets fell into Japanese territorial waters, the second leading cause quota the attitude of Trump, the president of the major Japanese ally, of wanting to reduce US military engagement, especially from the economic point of view, in the region; even though this will of the American president can not be supported, to keep the focus on matters of vital interest to the United States, the need for greater organizational and action independence has become a priority for Tokyo. The danger represented by Pyongyang is real: the impossibility of being able to oppose an effective armed force against Kim Jong-un's ongoing strength tests also penalizes potential diplomatic attempts to resolve the crisis and this factor has become aware of the electorate has given confidence to the premier in office, who on this topic has founded his own electoral campaign. If there are, therefore, aspects that can justify constitutional change, on the contrary, there are no opportunity considerations going in the opposite direction. The growing Chinese protagonism, even from a military point of view, can lead to clashes between Beijing and Tokyo, each jealous of its regional dimension, as well as the frequent conflicts between Japan and other countries in South East Asia, , can lead to a concrete risk that an armed Japan represents a further negative variable within the regional equilibrium system complex. New armaments or, as in this case, new armies, move the dialectic between States from a purely diplomatic dimension to one where the weight of weapons is growing, even as a preventative factor. The latest events in the Korean crisis, which is the worst situation, but not alone in the region, could make even worse developments with the presence of more armed force in the scenario.