The Global Article 9 Campaign is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year! During that time, the Campaign has been successfully promoting peace constitutions and advocating for the abolition of war in Japan and around the world. To commemorate this fifth anniversary, throughout this year we will be looking back on the start of the Global Article 9 Campaign and how it has changed since 2005.

Below is the excerpt of an interview on the Campaign's beginnings and evolution with Kawasaki Akira, Executive Committee Member of Peace Boat and Secretary General of the Japan Organizing Committee of Global Article 9 Conference to Abolish War held in May 2008.

Question: How did the idea of the campaign emerge?

Kawasaki: The campaign began in 2005, I remember, at the occasion of the global conference of the NGO network the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. It is an international NGO network starting from 2002 and focusing on how to prevent armed conflict and how to shape the focus in the security debate from reaction of the conflict to prevention of the conflict. In that, global NGOs and Northeast Asian NGOs gathered and discussed ways to prevent armed conflicts, and in that discussion, many groups that participated from outside of Japan recognized the value of the Japanese Article 9 in that character of non-militarism, non-violence, and the action agenda adopted by the network formally recognized the value of Article 9 as the foundation of Asia/Pacific peace. I was part of that process, and we Japanese members were so inspired in the discussion, because usually we thought that Article 9 was a domestic, legal, political issue. But it was a fresh experience for us to hear very positive remarks about our Article 9 from the international and global scope. So, inspired by that, we discussed with colleagues, especially in Northeast Asia, neighboring countries, and NGO groups and launched that campaign.

Question: Initially, what were the core mission, issues and goals of the Campaign?

Kawasaki: Very simply: globalizing Article 9. The concept of Article 9 was the core mission. To make Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution known to the people of the world, literally known to the people in the world, was one mission. Also, to share its spirit, for example, peaceful settlement of disputes and peaceful prevention of disputes. And also shifting resource allocation from military to human needs and highlighting the rights to live in peace. And, lastly, creating international peace mechanisms made from non-military ways. Those concepts and spirits we shared and implemented by countries in the world. That's the core mission.

Question: How has the Campaign evolved and changed since its inception?

Kawasaki: I think at the starting point it was a very Asia/Pacific focused initiative. But as time goes by and as it progresses, especially in the process of having the Article 9 conference in 2008, where nearly 200 participants from more than 40 countries gathered, it has become truly global and not limited to an Asia/Pacific focus. In the Asia/Pacific focus, the discussion tends to become how to curb Japanese militarization. It is one very important point. But by having, let's say Latin American participation or European participation or even African participation, the scope became really diverse and deep and really global.

This interview is part of a series of interviews with leaders, supporters, and conference participants of the Global Article 9 Campaign conducted by former Peace Boat and Global Article 9 Campaign intern Jay Gilliam.

Jay Gilliam is currently carrying out research on the Global Article 9 Campaign and peace constitutions around the world. He is enrolled in a Master's Program in Peace Studies & Conflict Resolution at International Christian University in Tokyo, Japan.

Shortly after getting into power, the Democratic Party of Japan established a panel of investigation to look into the alleged secret deals between Japan and the US during the Cold War.

Established at the initiative of Foreign Minister Okada Katsuya, the expert panel has looked into both formal agreements and undeclared arrangements, including those considered violating Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles (or policy of not possessing or producing nuclear weapons or allowing them on its territory).

Over 300 declassified Japanese documents substantiate details of the bilateral security arrangements, regarding issues such as the use of US bases without prior consultation with Tokyo if a crisis on the Korean Peninsula arose and about covering the costs of Okinawa's return to Japanese rule, as well as the tacit approval of entry into Japanese territory for US ship carrying nuclear weapons.

Though the scandal has long been exposed by other sources, notably through declassified US documents, it is the first time that Japan officially acknowledges the facts.

In its final report, the panel states that Tokyo and Washington "intentionally" avoided raising the question of prior consultation ahead of a US ship visit into Japanese ports, despite Japan's official position of the contrary, in order to ease bilateral relations.

The report concludes "the Japanese government offered dishonest explanations, including lies, from beginning to end. This attitude should not have been allowed under the principle of democracy."

Associations of victims of the atomic bombs reacted strongly to the panel's conclusions, expressing regrets that the government has deceived atomic-bomb survivors. In Hiroshima, the head of Nihon Hidankyo (Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization) said: "As the government of the only country to have suffered atomic bombings, I must say it is pathetic. The state must apologize to the people for lying to them."

Furthermore, the panel's report deplored the fact that a number of key documents were missing. In order to circumvent rumors the Foreign Ministry ordered to destroy documents related to the secret nuclear deal, the panel called for a public investigation on the issue, as well as for the establishment of procedures for declassifying documents and managing diplomatic papers. A new law is expected to be passed, which will define official documents as "intellectual resources shared by the people that support the very foundation of sound democracy."

Earlier, Prime Minister and DPJ President Hatoyama Yukio pledged his government would stick to the policy of not possessing or producing nuclear weapons or allowing them on its territory regardless of the panel's conclusions. Voices are now calling for the codification of Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles into law. "We strongly demand that the state abide by the principles as a national creed and work harder toward nuclear abolition," declared Hiroshima Governor Yuzaki Hidehiko.

For background information on the issue, please read the article that appeared in the July 2009 edition of this newsletter, here.

Political tensions are rising in Nepal with the increasing likelihood that the proclamation of a new Constitution will be postponed for the tenth times due to procedural delays and disagreement over key constitutional questions.

"Nepal remains suspended at a delicate point along the nation's journey from war to peace," warned UN Secretary General Lynn Pascoe during his visit to Kathmandu earlier this month. Indeed, the country's new constitution is expected to seal the peace process that followed the mass protests of 2006.

The current political stand-off is exacerbated by growing rivalry for influence in Nepal between the major and regional powers-particularly between nuclear India and China.

It is in this context that Professor Achin Vanaik, leading analyst on democracy and security issues in South Asia and renowned specialist on nuclear weapons, is proposing that Nepal "constitutionally establish[es] itself as a single state nuclear weapons free zone" (NWFZ).

In an article in the Kathmandu Post, Vanaik explains the value and impact of such constitutional move.

"First, it would be a positive anti-nuclear message in itself. It would legitimize the introduction of this concept into South Asia to be promoted and proposed for other parts of the sub-continent e.g., a NWFZ covering both parts of Kashmir across the border."

With tensions among nuclear India and Pakistan next door, as well as Chinese and Indian rivalry for influence over the country, Nepal's move would send "a serious anti-militarist message to much more powerful and nuclearized neighbours."

Vanaik's proposal looks at Mongolia as an interesting precedent. Indeed, it is the only other country to have declared itself a 'single state nuclear weapons free zone', thus calling for legal recognition of status by Nuclear Weapons States (or NWSs: the US, Russia, China, UK and France) - and "politically demanding a legal expression of sorts of peaceful and non-militarist behaviour by NWSs."

At the regional level, such a move by Kathmandu would take advantage of local rivalries (among India and Pakistan on the one hand, as well as between India and China) and push these countries to sign external protocols of recognition of Nepal's NWFZ. According to Vanaik, "the move towards constitutionally establishing Nepal as a single state NWFZ is fully within its power. No outside country, no matter how powerful, can stop it from doing this."

As the deadline for adopting a new constitution is nearing, Vanaik's proposal has been taken to Nepalese highest authorities. Strong of its own peace constitution, a Japanese delegation was to meet with Nepal's president this month to deliver the proposal for a NWFZ clause.

The Global Article 9 Campaign joins Vanaik's call on Nepali progressives to "look to learn from the Mongolian example (...) and at the very least put this issue on the political and constitutional agenda for serious consideration."

This article is based on Professor Achin Vanaik's piece that appeared in the Kathmandu Post. Read the full article here.