Article 9: Why revise?

I have recently began exploring the issues surrounding the debate regarding the proposed revisions of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. What an interesting issue with broad implications for the people of Japan, their national pride and their political presence on the world stage.

Briefly, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution prohibits the use of force as a means of settling international disputes. It also prohibits Japan from maintaining an army, navy or air force. Japan does have a Self Defense Force which is not considered an army, navy or air force. They are seen as extensions of the national police force and are used primarily to maintain law and order within Japan. http://tinyurl.com/Article-9-debate

Since the late 1990s, there has been much debate over Article 9. Largely because as it is constructed today, it limits and/or prohibits Japan's involvement in multilateral military commitments overseas. The United States particularly has urged Japan to take a larger role in the war on terror, which Article 9 prohibits. Additionally, Japan has been urged by various human rights organizations to assume a larger role in addressing human rights violations like those occurring in Sri Lanka. http://tinyurl.com/qlm6e7

More broadly, Japan has been called on to support various UN Security Council efforts to combat terror and/or address various human rights issues around the world that today are forbidden by Article 9's prohibition of use of force to do so. Article 9 supporters would like to see revisions made that would allow for Japan's involvement in multilateral commitments with other UN member states. Article 9 revisions would also allow Japan to maintain and utilize the Self Defense Force to protect against those who would aggressively move against Japan.

I welcome your thoughts. What do you think?