Japan Drops 'No-War' Pledge

[Ryan Ruck]

Japan Drops 'No-War' Pledge

January 20, 2014

A longtime no-war pledge has disappeared from Japan's Liberal Democratic Party's annual working policy revealed on Sunday, while the ruling party vowed to continue visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine and push ahead constitutional revision, in another move leading the country in a far-right direction, observers said.

At its 81st LDP annual convention in Tokyo, the party removed the pledge that Japan would "never wage a war", China Central Television reported on Sunday.

In another change from last year's policy, the party added a phrase saying it will "bolster veneration for the war dead" - referring to continued shrine visits - and also made clear it will amend the country's constitution. The changes show that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is also the party chief, will intensify efforts step by step to push Japan further into animosity with neighbouring countries, analysts said.

"The changes in the 2014 position indicate that Japan's rightward inclination is getting increasingly obvious. Removing the pledge of not starting a war is a long-term strategy for Abe," said Gao Hong, a researcher on Japanese studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Wang Xinsheng, a professor of international affairs at Peking University, said it is Abe's ultimate goal to "normalize" Japan, as indicated when he avoided mentioning the no-war pledge on Aug 15, the 68th anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II.

The convention on Sunday was held after Japan's neighbouring countries have aired their exacerbated worries over Tokyo's attempts to change its postwar status and return to militarism.

Abe visited the Yasukuni Shrine - where 14 Class-A Japanese war criminals are honoured - on Dec 26. He is the first incumbent Japanese prime minister to pay an official visit since 2006.

Abe then reaffirmed the no-war pledge to soothe international anger over his visit, saying he renewed his "determination before the souls of the war dead to firmly uphold the pledge never to wage war again".

According to Japanese media, the no-war pledge appeared in an earlier draft for the 2014 LDP working policy. "By removing the pledge, Abe has revealed his true political ambition, which is to reinstall Japan with the right to wage wars," Gao said.

Under the terms of its surrender in World War II, Japan banned from starting a war, while Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution also forbids Japan from resorting to warfare to settle international disputes.

"Abe has been eyeing a change to the postwar constitution for a long time, and can eventually realise that ambition by writing his intention into the LDP annual working policy," Gao said.

"However, Abe knows that there are still a lot of obstacles in front of him, so he chooses to push ahead step by step."

In August, Abe replaced Tsuneyuki Yamamoto, the chief of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, who opposed changes to the Japanese official view on war that stipulates Japan's military cannot exercise the right of collective self-defence since such an act would exceed the minimum use of force allowed by the Constitution.

The Cabinet Legislation Bureau has for decades maintained that while Japan has the right of collective self-defence, it cannot exercise it. Experts say that has been a major obstacle to lifting the ban on an expanded role for the armed forces.

After the LDP annual working policy was released, opposition parties in Japan immediately expressed discontent over the removal of the no-war pledge, according to the CCTV report.

Banri Kaieda, chief of the Democratic Party of Japan, said the issue needs to be discussed further, while Natsuo Yamaguchi, leader of the New Komeito Party - Abe's ally in the coalition - again urged Abe to restore Japan's deadlocked relations with China.

[American Patriot]

Saw this coming. I wondered when it would happen.

[Ryan Ruck]

Japan Set For Landmark Easing Of Constitutional Limits On Military

June 27, 2014

Japan is poised for a historic shift in its defense policy by ending a ban that has kept the military from fighting abroad since World War Two, a major step away from post-war pacifism and a big political victory for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The change will significantly widen Japan's military options by ending the ban on exercising "collective self-defense", or aiding a friendly country under attack. It will also relax limits on activities in U.N.-led peace-keeping operations and "grey zone" incidents short of full-scale war, according to a draft government proposal made available to reporters.

For now, however, Japan is likely to remain wary of putting boots on the ground in future multilateral operations such as the 1990-1991 Gulf War or the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, activities Abe himself has ruled out.

The change will likely rile an increasingly assertive China, whose ties with Japan have chilled due to a maritime row, mutual mistrust and the legacy of Japan's past military aggression, but will be welcomed by Tokyo's ally Washington, which has long urged Japan to become a more equal partner in the alliance.

Abe's cabinet is expected to adopt as early as Tuesday a resolution revising a long-standing interpretation of the U.S.-drafted constitution to lift the ban after his ruling party finalizes an agreement with its junior partner.

Legal revisions to implement the change must be approved by parliament and restrictions could be imposed in the process.

"If this gets through the Japanese political system it would be the most significant change in Japan's defense policy since the Self-Defense Forces were established in 1954," said Alan Dupont, a professor of international security at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

Since its defeat in 1945, Japan's military has not engaged in combat. While successive governments have stretched the limits of the U.S.-drafted pacifist charter not only to allow the existence of a standing military but also to permit non-combat missions abroad, its armed forces are still far more constrained legally than those in other countries.

Conservatives say the charter's war-renouncing Article 9 has excessively restricted Japan's ability to defend itself and that a changing regional power balance including a rising China means Japan's security policies must be more flexible.

Abe, whose first term as premier ended when he abruptly quit in 2007, returned in triumph in December 2012 pledging to revive Japan's stagnant economy and bolster its global security clout. He has pushed for the change despite surveys showing voters are divided and wary.

"In my view, Japan is finally catching up with the global standard of security," said former Japanese diplomat Kunihiko Miyake. "Japan can now do as every other United Nations member under the U.N. charter."

EXISTENTIAL THREAT, CLEAR DANGER

According to the draft cabinet resolution, Japan could exercise force to the minimum degree necessary in cases where a country with which it has close ties is attacked and the following conditions are met: there is a threat to the existence of the Japanese state, a clear danger exists that the Japanese people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could be subverted, and there is no appropriate alternative.

Precisely how the change might work in practice remains unclear. Junior coalition partner New Komeito is stressing that the scope of revision is limited, and Japanese voters are still wary of entanglements in conflicts far from home.

"Symbolically, it is a big step. The fundamental change to post-war Japanese security and defense policies which basically said we would defend ourselves but not help others by using force - philosophically this will be a fundamental change," said Narushige Michishita, a security expert at the National Graduate School for Policy Studies (GRIPS) in Tokyo.

But he added: "The Japanese people are not going to support a significant military commitment of Japan to foreign contingencies and wars, quite apart from how you could interpret the words."

Examples floated by the government of what the change could allow Japan's military to do range from defending a U.S. ship evacuating Japanese nationals and aiding a U.S. ship under attack near Japan to shooting down a ballistic missile headed for U.S. territory and taking part in international mine-sweeping operations when a conflict has closed vital sea lanes.

WELCOME SIGN FOR SOME IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Some of the scenarios, however, have been dismissed by experts as a public relations exercise to persuade wary voters of the need for the change, rather than realistic possibilities.

Japan might, for example, be too busy coping with North Korean missiles headed for its territory to shoot down ones headed for America, some experts said.

Unforeseen contingencies, meanwhile, could also well arise.

"The idea of identifying specific cases is a red herring, because we never really know," said Richard Samuels, director of the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "What we need to know is whether an ally will help us."

The change will make it easier for Japan to take part in bilateral and multilateral military exercises with countries other than the United States, including Southeast Asian nations such as the Philippines that have maritime disputes with China and are welcoming Japan's expanded security role, GRIPS' Michishita said.

"It is not for joint war fighting, but for capacity building. It would be a very difficult step if we were to fight together," Michishita said.

Philippine President Benigno Aquino said after meeting Abe this week that Manila welcomed Japan's more assertive policy.

Critics say revising the interpretation of the constitution will gut pacifist Article 9 and make a mockery of formal amendment procedures, which are politically much tougher.

"Cabinets can change often. If we change the interpretation of the constitution each time the cabinet changes, the stability of law will be fundamentally overturned and we will be unable to exist as a constitutional state," Seiichiro Murakami, a ruling Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker who is a rare, outspoken critic of Abe, told a news conference.

Still, experts say the impact of Article 9 remains strong.

"They are still genuflecting to the constitution," said MIT's Samuels. "I think there is a lot left of Article 9. The Japanese public has made it clear that it is 'not so fast' in getting rid of it."

[Avvakum]

Japan Set For Landmark Easing Of Constitutional Limits On Military

June 27, 2014

Japan is poised for a historic shift in its defense policy by ending a ban that has kept the military from fighting abroad since World War Two, a major step away from post-war pacifism and a big political victory for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The change will significantly widen Japan's military options by ending the ban on exercising "collective self-defense", or aiding a friendly country under attack. It will also relax limits on activities in U.N.-led peace-keeping operations and "grey zone" incidents short of full-scale war, according to a draft government proposal made available to reporters.

For now, however, Japan is likely to remain wary of putting boots on the ground in future multilateral operations such as the 1990-1991 Gulf War or the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, activities Abe himself has ruled out.

The change will likely rile an increasingly assertive China, whose ties with Japan have chilled due to a maritime row, mutual mistrust and the legacy of Japan's past military aggression, but will be welcomed by Tokyo's ally Washington, which has long urged Japan to become a more equal partner in the alliance.

Abe's cabinet is expected to adopt as early as Tuesday a resolution revising a long-standing interpretation of the U.S.-drafted constitution to lift the ban after his ruling party finalizes an agreement with its junior partner.

Legal revisions to implement the change must be approved by parliament and restrictions could be imposed in the process.

"If this gets through the Japanese political system it would be the most significant change in Japan's defense policy since the Self-Defense Forces were established in 1954," said Alan Dupont, a professor of international security at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

Since its defeat in 1945, Japan's military has not engaged in combat. While successive governments have stretched the limits of the U.S.-drafted pacifist charter not only to allow the existence of a standing military but also to permit non-combat missions abroad, its armed forces are still far more constrained legally than those in other countries.

Conservatives say the charter's war-renouncing Article 9 has excessively restricted Japan's ability to defend itself and that a changing regional power balance including a rising China means Japan's security policies must be more flexible.

Abe, whose first term as premier ended when he abruptly quit in 2007, returned in triumph in December 2012 pledging to revive Japan's stagnant economy and bolster its global security clout. He has pushed for the change despite surveys showing voters are divided and wary.

"In my view, Japan is finally catching up with the global standard of security," said former Japanese diplomat Kunihiko Miyake. "Japan can now do as every other United Nations member under the U.N. charter."

EXISTENTIAL THREAT, CLEAR DANGER

According to the draft cabinet resolution, Japan could exercise force to the minimum degree necessary in cases where a country with which it has close ties is attacked and the following conditions are met: there is a threat to the existence of the Japanese state, a clear danger exists that the Japanese people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could be subverted, and there is no appropriate alternative.

Precisely how the change might work in practice remains unclear. Junior coalition partner New Komeito is stressing that the scope of revision is limited, and Japanese voters are still wary of entanglements in conflicts far from home.

"Symbolically, it is a big step. The fundamental change to post-war Japanese security and defense policies which basically said we would defend ourselves but not help others by using force - philosophically this will be a fundamental change," said Narushige Michishita, a security expert at the National Graduate School for Policy Studies (GRIPS) in Tokyo.

But he added: "The Japanese people are not going to support a significant military commitment of Japan to foreign contingencies and wars, quite apart from how you could interpret the words."

Examples floated by the government of what the change could allow Japan's military to do range from defending a U.S. ship evacuating Japanese nationals and aiding a U.S. ship under attack near Japan to shooting down a ballistic missile headed for U.S. territory and taking part in international mine-sweeping operations when a conflict has closed vital sea lanes.

WELCOME SIGN FOR SOME IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Some of the scenarios, however, have been dismissed by experts as a public relations exercise to persuade wary voters of the need for the change, rather than realistic possibilities.

Japan might, for example, be too busy coping with North Korean missiles headed for its territory to shoot down ones headed for America, some experts said.

Unforeseen contingencies, meanwhile, could also well arise.

"The idea of identifying specific cases is a red herring, because we never really know," said Richard Samuels, director of the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "What we need to know is whether an ally will help us."

The change will make it easier for Japan to take part in bilateral and multilateral military exercises with countries other than the United States, including Southeast Asian nations such as the Philippines that have maritime disputes with China and are welcoming Japan's expanded security role, GRIPS' Michishita said.

"It is not for joint war fighting, but for capacity building. It would be a very difficult step if we were to fight together," Michishita said.

Philippine President Benigno Aquino said after meeting Abe this week that Manila welcomed Japan's more assertive policy.

Critics say revising the interpretation of the constitution will gut pacifist Article 9 and make a mockery of formal amendment procedures, which are politically much tougher.

"Cabinets can change often. If we change the interpretation of the constitution each time the cabinet changes, the stability of law will be fundamentally overturned and we will be unable to exist as a constitutional state," Seiichiro Murakami, a ruling Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker who is a rare, outspoken critic of Abe, told a news conference.

Still, experts say the impact of Article 9 remains strong.

"They are still genuflecting to the constitution," said MIT's Samuels. "I think there is a lot left of Article 9. The Japanese public has made it clear that it is 'not so fast' in getting rid of it."

Those who are cheerleading this here in America may have cause to regret it later.

[Ryan Ruck]

Tiltrotors, Radar Planes, Spy Drones and Amphibious Vehicles — Japan Goes on a Buying Spree

Tokyo rearms to keep up with Beijing

November 24, 2014

On Nov. 20, Japan’s ministry of defense announced it would buy billions of dollars’ worth of American-made aircraft and vehicles, including high-tech V-22 Osprey tiltrotors and the latest RQ-4 Global Hawk spy drones.

The new weapons are part of Tokyo’s evolving strategy for deterring—and potentially fighting—China’s increasingly aggressive armed forces in the Western Pacific.

In addition to the Global Hawks, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force will get E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar early-warning planes. The V-22s will belong to the Ground Self-Defense Force, as will a new fleet of AAV7 amphibious vehicles.

The Hawkeyes fit into Japan’s existing defense plans. But the Ospreys, Global Hawks and AAV7s represent new capabilities. The Self-Defense Force wants these new systems to help it respond to China’s military activities along Japan’s southwestern sea border.

Aerial radar showdown

Northrup Grumman’s E-2D beat out a Boeing 737-based radar plane in the contest for Japan’s next airborne early warning and control platform.

The Japanese trading powerhouse Itochu submitted the bid for the Boeing aircraft. Defense officials noted the superior cruising range and on-board capabilities of the Itochu bid, but chose the U.S. government’s E-2D bid as the cheaper purchase—¥14.4 billion per aircraft, or $122 million.

The Advanced Hawkeye will begin replacing the Air Self-Defense Force’s 13 E-2Cs, which entered service in 1987. Japan began upgrading its E-2Cs to the more sophisticated Hawkeye 2000 model in 2005.

The Advanced Hawkeye can stay in the air longer than its predecessor. It boasts new engines, a better avionics suites and a more sensitive electronically-scanned UHF radar for improved target detection and tracking.

Its processing and communications package is compatible with Japan’s existing Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system.

The Ministry of Defense plans to have four E-2D by the end of the 2019 fiscal year. The first will enter service at Naha air base in 2016 or 2017. The U.S. Navy began using Advanced Hawkeyes this year—Tokyo will undoubtedly be watching the aircraft’s performance very carefully.

Tiltrotor turnaround

The Ministry of Defense tailored a request for tender specifically for the V-22 after the government, late last year, signaled its interest in purchasing 17 Ospreys from the U.S.

The unique aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but cruises like an airplane thanks to its rotating engines—is already in Japan’s Okinawa prefecture with the resident U.S. Marine Corps.

The V-22 has a history of fatal crashes that has colored local opinion. There have been protests over the Osprey’s deployment to Japan—not just in Okinawa, but also in areas under the tiltrotors’ flight paths.

The Osprey’s bad reputation is hard to shake. Tokyo has been trying to dispel local people’s worries by encouraging the Americans to fly their Ospreys over the Japanese main islands—thus proving that the tiltrotors can be safe.

In October, V-22s took part in the army’s Michinoku ALERT exercise in the Tohoku region as well as in a tsunami drill. In both exercises, they ferried medical teams and emergency supplies into the supposed disaster-stricken regions.

The Osprey has also been a crowd-pleaser at recent American and Japanese military airshows.

The Ministry of Defense has been in talks with local authorities in Saga prefecture, where it hopes to base Japan’s Osprey fleet—and it seems like the public relations war is paying dividends.

The prefectural governor appears willing to allow the V-22s to fly out of Saga’s commercial airport. The airport is strategically important—it’s close enough to Sasebo to ferry the planned amphibious force there to the nation’s outlying Nansei islands in order to defend against incursions by rivals such as China.

Unmanned surveillance

The U.S. government placed both bids for Japan’s requirement for a long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle. Northrup Grumman’s Global Hawk won out over General Atomics’ Guardian ER.

Defense officials will request ¥100 billion from next year’s budget to purchase three aircraft by 2018. The aircraft should enter service the following year.

The ministry first mentioned its concrete plans to pursue the Global Hawk last year when it appropriated ¥200 million to research a possible acquisition.

Japan has expressed an interest in the huge spy drone since the 2011 tsunami. The U.S. sent its own RQ-4 from Guam to conduct aerial damage assessment over the disaster-stricken regions.

Tokyo is currently considering deploying Japan’s Global Hawks out of Misawa air base in Aomori. The U.S. Air Force began operating Global Hawks out of the same base this summer.

Like the U.S. drones at Misawa, Tokyo’s Global Hawks will likely keep watch on North Korean missile activity and on the Chinese military and civilian activity encroaching on Japan’s southwestern border.

For an island nation such as Japan with large expanses of ocean between its air bases and maritime borders, the Global Hawk’s 28-hour flight time make it an ideal surveillance platform—although critics warn that three aircraft is simply not enough to provide continuous uninterrupted surveillance.

Amphibious start

The final major purchase announcement was also the quietest. The Tokyo Nikkei Shimbun reported that the Ministry of Defense had firmed up plans to buy 52 BAE Systems AAV7A1 amphibious vehicles over the coming two years.

The Ground Self-Defense Force has been conducting tests with a provisional fleet of AAV7s as part of Tokyo’s effort to establish a 2,000-strong Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade.

The provisional fleet consists of four AAV7 infantry carriers that Japan purchased from the U.S. Marine Corps in the 2013 fiscal year. The ministry also planned to acquire one command variant and one recovery variant this year for tests, but it’s not clear whether the Ground Self-Defense Force has received these variants yet.

Tokyo Nikkei Shimbun also reported that Tokyo will purchase 30 of the swimming vehicles in the coming financial year, then another 22 by 2016. In total, the Ground Self-Defense Force will receive 42 personnel carriers, five command variants and five recovery vehicles.

The fleet is expected to enter service no later than 2017.

The large AAV7 fleet will boost the government’s efforts to create an amphibious force capable of defending the Nansei islands in Japan’s southwest.

But in press conferences last winter, journalists repeatedly questioned the decision to accelerate the purchase. If Tokyo Nikkei Shimbun’s report is true, then the Ministry of Defense has expanded the AAV7 acquisition despite having had no or little time to review the command and recovery variants.

This haste suggests that Japan is increasingly worried about the remote islands along its maritime border with China, but the government denies this is the case. “We are not specifying a country or a specific security situation in this case,” then-defense minister Itsunori Onodera said in January.

The Sasebo-based Western Army Infantry Regiment—which will form the backbone of the new amphibious unit—has been training in the U.S. Marine Corps for a decade now, giving the regiment great familiarity with the AAV7.

One of major remaining obstacles to a functional amphibious capability is a lack of shared experience between the Ground and Maritime Self-Defense Forces. The Western Army Infantry Regiment completed its first joint amphibious exercise with the navy in May.

The new amphibious force will act as a rapid response unit—and it will need reinforcements from other army units. The Maritime Self-Defense Force currently lacks the transportation capabilities to deploy heavier armor and units to Japan’s remote islands.

At the moment, Japan relies on civilian ferries to transport armor from the north of Japan to training grounds in Kyushu.

To improve their deployment capabilities, this summer the Ministry of Defense confirmed that they would upgrade Japan’s three Osumi-class landing ships to carry the AAV7 and Osprey.

It also begun planning “a multirole ship capable of command and control, large-scale transportation and aviation use for amphibious operations.” The ministry should begin defining the specifications of this new vessel in the next financial year.

[Ryan Ruck]

Japan Moves to Allow Military Combat for First Time in 70 Years

July 16, 2015

Defying broad public opposition and large demonstrations, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe won a crucial vote in Parliament on Thursday for legislation that would give Japan’s military limited powers to fight in foreign conflicts for the first time since World War II.

Mr. Abe’s party and its allies in the lower house of Parliament approved the package of 11 security-related bills after opposition lawmakers walked out in protest and as demonstrators chanted noisily outside, despite a gathering typhoon. The upper chamber, which Mr. Abe’s coalition also controls, is all but certain to endorse the legislation as well.

The vote was the culmination of months of contentious debate in a society that has long embraced pacifism to atone for wartime aggression. It was a significant victory for Mr. Abe, a conservative politician who has devoted his career to moving Japan beyond guilt over its militarist past and toward his vision of a “normal country” with a larger role in global affairs.

Mr. Abe has pressed this agenda, though, against the wishes of much of the Japanese public, and his moves have generated unease across Asia, especially in countries Japan once occupied and where its troops committed atrocities. Final passage of the bills would represent a break from the strictly defensive stance maintained by the Japanese military in the decades since the war.

Critics, including a majority of Japanese constitutional specialists, say the legislation violates the country’s postwar charter, which renounces war. But the legislation is supported by the United States, Japan’s wartime foe turned ally and protector, which has welcomed a larger role for Tokyo in regional security as a counterweight to a more assertive China.

Mr. Abe has spent considerable political capital pushing the bills through. Voters oppose them by a ratio of roughly two to one, according to numerous surveys, and the government’s support ratings, which were once high, fell to around 40 percent in several polls taken this month.

Mr. Abe has presented the package as an unavoidable response to new threats facing Japan, in particular the growing military power of China. He seized on the murder of two Japanese hostages by the Islamic State militant group in January as an example of why Japan needs to loosen restrictions on its military, suggesting that the military might have rescued them if it had been free to act.

“These laws are absolutely necessary because the security situation surrounding Japan is growing more severe,” he said after Thursday’s vote.

China condemned passage of the bills, describing them as a potential threat to peace in Asia and invoking Japan’s wartime aggression.

“We solemnly urge the Japanese side to draw hard lessons from history, stick to the path of peaceful development, respect the major security concerns of its Asian neighbors, and refrain from jeopardizing China’s sovereignty and security interests or crippling regional peace and stability,” Hua Chunying, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said in a statement.

With opposition lawmakers boycotting the vote, the bills passed with the support of the Liberal Democratic Party, led by Mr. Abe, and its smaller coalition partner, Komeito, which control a majority of seats in the legislature’s lower house, the House of Representatives. To become law, they must still be approved by the upper chamber, but in the unlikely event that the package is rejected, the lower house can override that decision.

The upper house is scheduled to debate the legislation for 60 days, keeping the issue in the public eye and potentially fueling more protests. “There is plenty of time for this newfound appetite for opposition to the Abe government to grow,” Sheila A. Smith, senior fellow for Japan studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said online.

In an address to a joint meeting of the United States Congress in April, Mr. Abe pledged that he would enact the legislation to strengthen Japan’s already close ties to the United States. But “a deeply divided Japanese public over alliance cooperation is not the outcome U.S. policy makers hoped for,” Ms. Smith wrote.

The legislation would allow the Japanese military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to cooperate more closely with United States forces by providing logistical support and, in certain circumstances, armed backup in international conflicts. It complements guidelines in a bilateral agreement governing how Japanese and United States forces work together, which was signed by the two nations this year.

Mr. Abe has failed to dispel concerns of the Japanese public that looser restrictions on the military could embroil Japan in damaging and unnecessary wars. The United States-led war in Iraq is often cited by critics as a cautionary example, although Mr. Abe and his supporters say the many caveats contained in the bills would prevent Japan from fighting in such a conflict.

Under the legislation, Japan could fight to defend allies, but only when not doing so would threaten “the lives and survival of the Japanese nation.” Mr. Abe’s opponents counter that the criteria are vague.

If it clears the remaining procedural hurdles, the legislation is likely to face challenges in the courts, but to what effect is uncertain. The Constitution, written by Japan’s American occupiers after the war, states that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” In multiple surveys of constitutional scholars, more than 90 percent have said the legislation violates the charter.

Japanese judges, however, have in the past been mostly unwilling to overrule the government on matters of security.

“It is a huge mistake to set aside a constitutional interpretation built up by governments for 70 years without sufficient public understanding and debate,” Katsuya Okada, head of the largest opposition party, said before the opposition walkout.

Mr. Abe has long argued that the Constitution should be amended to remove its restrictive antiwar provisions, but changing the charter would require a national referendum that he would probably lose. For now, at least, a contested reinterpretation of the Constitution appears to be the most he can hope for.

On Wednesday night, large crowds gathered outside Parliament after the bills were approved by a committee in an emotional and chaotic session. Opposition lawmakers held up signs saying “No to Abe politics” and tore notes from the committee chairman’s hand as he closed the debate.

The crowd on Wednesday was estimated by protest organizers at around 100,000, which would make it the largest antigovernment demonstration in Japan since protests in 2012 against the proposed restart of nuclear power plants, a year after the nuclear accident in Fukushima. The police had no official estimate.

A small number of protesters remained on Thursday under intermittent downpours. They shouted “Shame on the Abe government” and “Don’t send young people to war.”