I. Basic meaning

Lifting the ban on collective self-defense is relative to prohibiting the exercise of collective self-defense, that is, the exercise of collective self-defense is no longer limited to the use of force when the country is attacked, but can also be used when the allies are attacked or even hostile countries do not attack their own countries.

Under the cover of the above rhetoric, the essence of the so-called "lifting the ban on collective self-defense" is that Japan tries to regain the right to wage war with foreign countries.

Second, the historical situation

After Japan surrendered in World War II, 1946 formulated a new Japanese Constitution, which was later called the "Peace Constitution". Japan's constitutional interpretation prohibits the exercise of "collective self-defense" and only allows the exercise of individual self-defense, that is, the exercise of force when the country is attacked.

Generally speaking, all countries have the right to collective self-defense. However, as Japan was one of the countries that launched the Second World War, it gave up the right to collective self-defense according to Article 9 of the Constitution, "give up the war and not build an army".

Prohibiting the exercise of "collective self-defense" is an important policy choice made by Japan under the guidance of the principle of "peaceful constitution" according to the domestic and international situation after World War II, and it is also a concrete element that constitutes its basic national policy of "defending exclusively" for more than half a century.

After the end of the Cold War, the concept of "collective self-defense" was more reflected in the alliance between Japan and the United States, especially after the "9. 1 1" terrorist attacks, the United States repeatedly asked Japan to exercise "collective self-defense".

Third, if you look at it.

The People's Daily warned that lifting the ban on collective self-defense is a dangerous signal and a wake-up call. "Japanese right-wing forces have genes of paranoia and adventure. This force will not only try to' seize the opportunity' to make a difference, but even take the initiative to' create opportunities' in the future. "

The editorial of "Beijing News" starts with three conditions for Japan to use force, and analyzes the possible behavior logic of Japan in the future. The editorial believes that Japan's lifting of the ban on collective self-defense is full of loopholes in logic, reflecting the effectiveness and urgency of this move. Utilitarianism lies in Japan's desire to bind the military expansion impulses of the United States and Japan more closely; What is urgent is that Japan has territorial disputes with neighboring countries such as China, South Korea and Russia. Therefore, "in addition to increasing the doubts of the countries concerned, it will only have a magnifying effect on the instability of the geopolitical situation."

South Korean media also warned that Japan's move is not conducive to regional stability. The East Asia Daily pointed out that the individual decisions and actions of the Japanese government should be based on the principle of contributing to regional peace and stability, dispelling the concerns of neighboring countries and maintaining transparency.

The wording of South Korea's Seoul News is even sharper: Abe's decision is like a declaration that "Japan is a war country" to the world, indicating that Japan's "aggression DNA" will be resurrected.