www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> The Breakaway from the Century of War - Article 9 as the Overc
watanabe shinya on Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:45:39 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> The Breakaway from the Century of War - Article 9 as the Overcoming of European Modernism


Dear Nettimers,

Hi, I am making an art exhibition about Japanese Peace Constitution Article 9
which was written by the U.S. Occupied Military. The issue of Article 9 is a
issue of modernism, I believe, and I wrote the text prior to my art exhibition
"Into the Atomic Sunshine - Post War Art under Japanese Peace Constitution
Article 9" which opens on Jan 12th, 2008 at the Puffin Room in SOHO.

I want to share the issue of modernism with everyone, so I decided to send this
text to you. Thank you!

Shinya Watanabe
--

The Breakaway from the Century of War¡¡-¡¡Article 9 as the Overcoming of European Modernism (Dec.8, 2007)
http://spikyart.org/atomicsunshine/article9textbyshinya.html

Text by Shinya Watanabe

Headline:
Curating an Art Exhibition about Japanese Peace Constitution Article 9
Alteration of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan to the Constitution of Japan after the Defeat
¡°The MacArthur Draft¡± Has Been Secretly Developed
What is the ¡°Atomic Sunshine¡± Conference?
Who proposed Article 9?
Function of Article 9 in the Postwar Period
About the Definition of European States that Caused World War II
World War II created Emmanuel Levinas¡¯ philosophy of the ¡°Other¡±
As a Problem of Modernism - The Historian¡¯s Quarrel in Germany and the Yasukuni Shrine Dispute in Japan
The Possibility of Article 9 in the 21st Century


Curating an Art Exhibition about Japanese Peace Constitution Article 9


The Constitution of Japan was essentially written by the U.S. Military
officials from the General Headquarters (GHQ) during the Occupation of Japan.
¡°Article 9¡± of the Japanese Constitution, known as the Peace Constitution
(Heiwa Kenpo), renounces war and possession of potentially belligerent forces
as a sovereign right of the nation. 

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and
order, 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 order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air
forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of
belligerency of the state will not be recognized. 

This unique provision in the peace clause of the Constitution, unlike any seen
elsewhere, reflects the idealism of the American New Dealers. This
constitution, well received by the Japanese people who experienced the
bitterness of war, has not been altered for 60 years. But now, with political
instability in Asia and an upsurge in nationalism, its very existence is being
questioned. 

Article 9 greatly helped Japan recover from war and indeed reshaped the
country, and through this article Japan avoided direct confrontation with other
countries. There have been no casualties of war for more than 60 years.
Although Article 9 has kept Japan from direct involvement in wars, indirect
involvement in conflicts has allowed Article 9 to support a twisted status quo.
This unique situation has given artists the opportunity to discover a theme to
tackle and express in their works. Numerous artists have grappled with issues
such as post-war problems and identity problems; these works are also related
to the issue of Article 9 and world peace.

The art exhibition ¡°Into the Atomic Sunshine - Post-War Art under Japanese
Peace Constitution Article 9,¡± mounted in a climate in which the Constitution
is faced with possible revision, attempts to raise issues and increase
awareness of the influence of the peace Constitution, which played such an
important role in shaping post-war Japan , and the reaction toward it of
post-war art.


Alteration of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan to the Constitution of
Japan after the Defeat 


Just after the defeat, the Japanese Government expected that the Supreme
Commander of the Allied Powers (so-called GHQ) would demand the revision of the
Constitution of the Empire of Japan. On October 4, 1945, Douglas MacArthur,
Supreme Commander of GHQ, suggested an amendment of the constitution to
Fumimaro Konoe, who was then Minister of State of the Higashikuninomiya
Cabinet. Therefore, Konoe started to investigate the Constitution¡¯s amendment.
Parallel to this, Prime Minister Shidehara, who organized a new cabinet on
October, 9 installed the Constitution Investigation Committee (so called
Matsumoto Committee) led by Joji Matsumoto, the Minister of State, as a
chairman, and began researching the constitutional amendment.

However, because of his war responsibility and being outside the Cabinet, there
was a strong objection to the investigation of constitutional amendment by
Konoe, and the matter came to a deadlock. The constitutional amendment work was
given only to the Matsumoto committee, launched under a Shidehara cabinet. The
Matsumoto committee was held from October 27, 1945 to February 2, 1946; it
submitted ¡°Private Plan of the Amendment of Constitution¡± on January 9, 1946.

 
¡°The MacArthur Draft¡± Has Been Secretly Developed
 

At first, GHQ was not going to interfere excessively in the amendment, but it
then initiated an investigation of the Japanese constitution, especially
focusing on a private constitutional amendment draft (¡°Draft Outline of the
Constitution¡±) created by the Constitution Research Association (Kenpo Kenkyu
Kai), from the beginning of 1946.

The concern inside of GHQ was MacArthur¡¯s legal authority toward the Japanese
constitutional amendment. On the issue of the Japanese Constitution, Courtney
Whitney, who was the Senior Official of GHQ Government Section (Minsei Kyoku),
submitted a report saying that any kind of steps, if MacArthur thinks they are
suitable, need to be realized. This document suggests that after the launching
of the Far East Committee, which included Soviet Union and Australia and which
was approaching on February 26, the authority of MacArthur would not be
unlimited.

In addition, on February 1, the day Whitney¡¯s report was submitted, Mainichi
Shimbun published a scoop regarding ¡°the Matsumoto Committee Plan.¡± ¡°The
Matsumoto Committee Plan,¡± in this article, was comparatively liberal in the
drafts submitted to the Matsumoto Committee; but Whitney analyzed the character
of this plan as extremely conservative, and it did not get support by Japanese
people. Therefore, GHQ judged that if it was assigned to the Japanese
Government, world opinion, represented by the Far East Committee, might demand
the abolition of the Emperor system. Therefore GHQ decided to create a draft.

On February 3, MacArthur established three principles to draft the Plan of
Constitution of Japan on GHQ¡¯s side¡ªemperor as symbol of state and of the
unity of people, renunciation of war, and sovereignty residing in the
people¡ªand gave this to Whitney. By receiving these three principles, GHQ
Government Section created a committee to draft the constitution, and on
February 4, Whitney ordered the drafting members that a constitution was the
first priority and to draft it confidentially.

Among the twenty-five drafting members in the Government Section, four had
experiences as lawyers, but none of them specialized in studying the
constitution. Therefore, they referred to private Japanese constitution drafts
such as the one written by the Constitution Research Association, and also
constitutions of various other countries. An original plan was created from the
tentative plans by working day and night at Government Section, and the draft
was completed on February 12. On February 13, the ¡°MacArthur Draft,¡± which
was very liberal at that time, was submitted from the GHQ side to the Japanese
Government.


What is the ¡°Atomic Sunshine¡± Conference?
 

The exhibition title ¡°Atomic Sunshine¡± derives from a nickname given to the
conference that created the new Constitution of Japan, which was attended by
General Courtney Whitney of GHQ, Shigeru Yoshida (Prime Minister of Japan from
1947), Jiro Shirasu (translator), and Jyoji Matsumoto, the minister of the
Department of State who was in charge of creating the new Japanese
Constitution, on February 13, 1946. 

The ¡°MacArthur draft¡± presented to the Japanese Government on February 13 was
an answer to the Matsumoto Committee Plan, which the Japanese Government had
submitted on February 8. However, the Japanese side knew nothing of the
drafting work done by GHQ, and were completely surprised by this ¡°MacArthur
Draft.¡± 

General Whitney rejected Matsumoto's conservative Constitution scheme, and
explained that the GHQ¡¯s version of the Japanese Constitution scheme was a
definitive plan embodying Japan¡¯s current needs for principles, and that it
was already approved by General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of GHQ. Then
the American group came down to the garden of the palace and gave the Japanese
group the time to read out the English version. While an American bomber flew
overhead and shook the palace, the translator Jiro Shirasu came out to the
garden and joined the American group. Whitney said to Shirasu,

 
¡°We have been enjoying your atomic sunshine.¡±


General Whitney¡¯s comment made it clear to the Japanese who was the winner and
loser of the war. He remarked that accepting the provisions stipulated in the
GHQ draft would be the best way to keep the Emperor ¡°secure,¡± and if the
Japanese government did not accept this plan, then General MacArthur would
propose this plan directly to the Japanese people. This conference creating the
new Constitution later came to be called the ¡°Atomic Sunshine Conference.¡±[1]
Based on this GHQ plan, the Japanese cabinet created the amendment plan, and it
was proclaimed as the new Japanese Constitution on November 3, 1946.


Who proposed Article 9?
 

The new constitution including Article 9 was written substantially by the GHQ,
but there are various opinions about where the idea of Article 9 came from, and
two opinions among many are well-known. The first one is that it came from
Douglas MacArthur, and the second is that it came from then prime minister
Kijyuro Shidehara.

About the MacArthur theory, both MacArthur and the United States were concerned
about the rearmament of Japan, so to avoid that, they included the clause of
pacifism in the Constitution. The article of renunciation of war, stated in
MacArthur¡¯s three principles (also known as MacArthur Note), is as follows:

2. War as a sovereign right of the nation is abolished. Japan renounces it as
an instrumentality for settling its disputes and even for preserving its own
security. It relies upon the higher ideals which are now stirring the world for
its defense and its protection. No Japanese army, navy, or air force will ever
be authorized and no rights of belligerency will ever be conferred upon any
Japanese force.[2][3]

However, on the side of the Shidehara theory, Prime Minister Shidehara visited
MacArthur on January 24, just before the announcement of MacArthur¡¯s three
principles, and Michiko Hamuro, the daughter of Ohira, heard from her father
what Shidehara talked about with Komatsuchi Odaira, the Privy Councilor, and
regarding this conference, she wrote:

£¨Shidehara£©said that starting from the idealistic position that the world
should not maintain any military, to make a society without war we should
renounce war itself. Then, MacArthur suddenly stood up, and grasped
Shidehara¡¯s hand with both hands, and, full of tears, he said, that is right.
Shidehara was a little surprised by this. ¡­ MacArthur seemed to think about
doing something good for Japan as much as possible, but some parts of the U.S.
government, some members of GHQ, and also the Far East committee began an
argument that had a tremendous disadvantage for Japan. Countries such as the
Soviet Union, Holland, and Australia feared the institution of the Emperor
itself. ¡­ Therefore, they insisted that to abolish emperor system, the Emperor
needed to be judged as a war criminal. MacArthur seems to have been troubled
about this very much.

Therefore MacArthur thought that the idealism of Shidehara, the announcement of
renunciation of war, need to be done as soon as possible, and show that
Japanese people do not cause war in the world and get trusts of foreign
countries, and clearly define that Emperor is a symbol of Japan in the
constitution, so we can start to keep Emperor system without the interference
of various countries. ¡­ Both of them agreed that there is no other method to
keep Emperor System in Japan, so Shidehara made up his mind to accept this
draft.[4]

In addition, MacArthur tells in his autobiography Reminiscences (1964) that the
article of war renunciation was suggested by Shidehara[5], supporting the
opinion that Article 9 was proposed by Prime Minister Shidehara. However,
Shigeru Yoshida, who became the prime minister after Shidehara, denied this
theory in the book The Yoshida Memoirs (1957), and mentioned that General
MacArthur had declared his intentions earlier than Shidehara.


Function of Article 9 in the Postwar Period
 

Considering post-war Japan, maintaining Article 9 led Japan to economic
prosperity. However, the process was complicated.

In 1951, Japan became independent of the occupation by the U.S. at the Treaty
of Peace with Japan in San Francisco. Although the Republic of China
participated, People¡¯s Republic of China, Republic of Korea, and Democratic
People's Republic of Korea did not, and this became a huge war responsibility
problem in post-war Japan. However, the message of Article 9, that
Japan¡¡¡±renounces war,¡± also had a meaning of apology toward the Asian
countries which Japan had invaded.

On the same day of the peace treaty, Japan and the United States concluded the
Japan-U.S. Security Treaty (later it became Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and
Security between the United States and Japan). Since then, the situation of
Article 9 has been part of an even more twisted status quo; Article 9 sustains
the presence of the U.S. military in Japan. This is the reason why the
Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and Article 9 are often discussed together. 

Furthermore, after the outbreak of the Korean War and the drastic change of
American policy concerning Japanese democratization and non-militarization (the
so-called reverse course), Japan started to organize the National Police
Reserve in 1950, which became the National Safety Force in 1952 and the Self
Defense Force in 1954. Furthermore, when Nixon visited Japan in 1953, he
mentioned that Article 9 was a mistake, and Japan should revise the
constitution.

To oppose the reverse course of conservative government and revision of the
constitution, in 1951, under the policy of ¡°protection of the Constitution and
anti Japan-U.S. security treaty,¡± both the right and left wings of Socialist
Party Japan were united and became the biggest political party in Japan. At the
request of financiers who felt the crisis by the unification of the Socialist
Party Japan, two existing parties, the Democratic Party of Japan and the
Liberal Party united, forming the Liberal Democratic Party. Since then, the
two-party system of the Liberal Democratic Party, advocating ¡°revision of the
Constitution / conservative / protection of Japan-U.S. security treaty¡±, and
the Socialist Party Japan, advocating ¡°protection of the Constitution /
innovation / anti Japan-U.S. security treaty¡± were formed (the so-called 55
year system), and it lasted until 1993.

Furthermore, during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, built on Cold War
underpinnings, Japan received economic benefits for its indirect cooperation
with the U.S., all the while maintaining Article 9 and avoiding dispatching
troops. However, mainland Japan and Okinawa were criticized both from inside
and outside the country for collusion with the U.S. by maintaining U.S.
military bases. Inside Japan, a brutal demonstration and struggle against the
Japan-U.S. Security Treaty has grown. 

In addition, during the Gulf War, the Japanese posture of refusing the dispatch
of troops to the PKO because of Article 9 has been criticized both from inside
and outside Japan. At the same time, Japan created an extremely rare economic
development model, in that while it became a world economic power, Article 9
ensured that the military industry was not enlarged.

However, what I want to carefully contemplate is the ¡°otherness¡± that Article
9 itself contains. Although the Japanese constitution possesses a viewpoint of
a post-WWII constitution, expressed in its negation of the absolutization of
national sovereignty and internationalization of the constitution, these have
been considered in extremely nation-centered terms, such as the viewpoint of
the state¡¯s confrontation with other states. The definition of the Japanese
nation was done by the U.S. occupation military, and the message of Article 9
was directed toward the Asian countries that Japan had invaded.

Therefore, I want to think this issue as a global issue, not as a Japanese
domestic issue. What does it mean to include ¡°renunciation of war¡± in one¡¯s
own constitution, and to appeal this way toward the others? 


About the Definition of European States that Caused World War II

 
Nation-states were created during the modernization in Europe after the
Napoleonic Wars, and constitutions have been used to define nationality¡ªin
other words, to regulate the nation. Furthermore, the idea of nation-state
resulted in the idea of colonialism, and through this, it has been exported to
Asia.

About the concept of the state, Max Weber reflected that the idea of the state
should be defined by its use of violence.[6] Weber places the political group
that monopolized the ¡°means¡± of using the violence as the ¡°state,¡± and this
state uses violence to consolidate the order. That is to say, domestic problems
are judged as a crime under the authority of states, but Weber points out that
the mechanism of monopolizing the use of violence was completed in the process
of modernization. 

In addition, Carl Schmitt states that in the political arena, the distinction
of allies and enemy becomes a specific index,[7] and states that war is
produced by the hostility of denying the existence of the others. In other
words, war is caused by hostility. By denying the recognition of others outside
of its own state, which monopolizes the use of violence¡ªthat is to say, the
violence of the negation of others in the battle between the states, which as
political groups monopolize violence, will result in war. Then, the process of
modernism bound up with the nation-state completes the mechanism of using
violence. Two world wars were an inevitable result.

 
World War II created Emmanuel Levinas¡¯ philosophy of the ¡°Other¡±
 

As a result of fascism, in which the war machine took over the state, Europe
experienced the tragedy of the Holocaust; and to reconsider the violence of the
negation of others, the philosophy of ¡°others¡± represented by Emmanuel
Levinas was born. Levinas¡¯ philosophy of others was a post-war European
philosophy, and as such can be created only by the person who experienced the
violence of the Holocaust, which absolutely lacked the philosophy of the
¡°other.¡± The importance of the philosophy of others is that it abolished the
violent ontology of Heidegger and brought ethical questions into philosophy
again.

Levinas writes that wisdom is to find the possibility of existence of war
forever, and also that no one can be distant from war. He mentions that war,
rather, destroys the identity of the ¡°same.¡± 

For the philosophical tradition the conflicts between the same and the other
are resolved by theory where by the other is reduced to the same - or,
concretely by the community of the State, where beneath anonymous power, though
it be intelligible, the I rediscovers war in the tyrannic opposition it
undergoes from the totality.[8]

Also Levinas points out that to ¡°let him be,¡± a relationship of discourse is
required, and a face-to-face approach, in conversation as ¡°Justice.¡±[9] 

Furthermore, Levinas continues, the exceptional presence of the ¡°other¡± is
inscribed in the ethical impossibility of killing him in which I stands.[10]

Between the I and what it lives from there does not extend the absolute
distance that separates the same from the other. ¡­ The reversion of all the
modes of being to the I, to the inevitable subjectivity constituting itself in
the happiness of enjoyment, does not institute an absolute subjectivity,
independent of the non-I.[11]

Levinas also says that the power of the ¡°other¡± is an ethical thing from the
beginning, and the asymmetric relationship with the ¡°others¡± creates war.
Peace must be my peace, in a relation that starts from an I and goes to the
other, in desire and goodness.[12]

 
As a Problem of Modernism ¨C The Historian¡¯s Quarrel in Germany and the
Yasukuni Shrine Dispute in Japan
 

In the post-war period, relating to violence and the ¡°other,¡± there are two
interesting historical facts. Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia, both the
aggressor countries and the defeated countries, have similar large-scale
disputes. One is ¡°Historikerstreit (Historian¡¯s Quarrrel)¡±¡ªan argument
whether the relativization of the Nazi regime can be possible or not, mainly
represented by J¨¹rgen Habermas and Ernst Nolte; and the other one is
¡°Yasukuni Ronsou (Yasukuni Dispute)¡±¡ªwhether we can justify the worshipping
of the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors the war dead (called Eirei) who devoted
their lives for Japan, mainly represented by Tetsuya Takahashi and Norihiro
Kato.

The ¡°Historian¡¯s Quarrel¡± started in the early summer of 1986 with
Habermas¡¯s criticism of two texts: Nolte¡¯s lecture which was to be given in
Frankfurt, and Andreas Hillgruber¡¯s book Zweierlei Untergang (Two Kinds of
Ruin).[13]

In particular, Nolte claimed that Auschwitz is rather a reaction toward the
Russian Bolshevik revolution and its copy rather than traditional
anti-Semitism, and such kind of tragedy was inevitable in history, and
comparable to the Great Purge of Stalin, and the massacres of Pol Pot.[14] That
is to say, his position is conservative: he interprets the crimes of the Nazis
in a relative way, and tries to maintain the national pride of Germany.

Habarmas criticized Nolte as a revisionist, and claimed that the only
patriotism that avoids the estrangement of West Germany from Western Europe is
constitutional patriotism (German Constitution was also written by the United
Nations); the loyalty to various universal principles of the constitution is
now only what one is able to take pride in, unfortunately after and through
Auschwitz, in Germany.[15]

Through this huge dispute, lots of questions had been raised: whether the
historian is a leading figure of national identity; whether what Germans try to
get is a constitutional patriotism that loves the constitution, or a national
patriotism that loves the identity of the nation; whether history is abused for
political disputes; and whether the education of history should be historicized
or moralized. 

Almost a decade after this dispute, the Yasukuni Dispute erupted in Japan. In
the book Haisengo Ron (Theory of Post-War, 1999), Norihiro Kato insisted that
in post-war Japan, the improvement of the constitution caused the ¡°dissociated
personality,¡± and as a result a ¡°dissociation of the dead¡±¡ªso by having a
funeral for its own three million war-dead, then, Japan can build its own
subject so as to make apology for the twenty million victims in invaded Asian
countries.[16] Compared to this, in the book Sengo Sekinin Ron (Theory of
Post-War Responsibility), Tetsuya Takahashi objected that not by considering
Japan¡¯s dead first, but only by maintaining the memory of the disgrace and
continuing being ashamed¡ªthat is to say, considering the total responsibility
of the war of aggression as a present problem¡ªwill the possibility of Japanese
politics and ethics become realized.[17]

One thing to learn here is that both the Historian¡¯s Quarrel and the Yasukuni
Dispute are not solved by pure logic anymore. What Habarmas and Takahashi try
to argue is a question of ethics and the ¡°other,¡± as Levinas had discussed.
Therefore, does the setting of the ethical question itself correspond to the
face-to-face discourse with the ¡°others¡±?
 

The Possibility of Article 9 in the 21st Century

 
Article 9 is the unprecedented declaration that the definition of the nation
itself takes the existence of the ¡°other¡± as a premise, thus overcoming the
structure of modernism. The definition of Article 9, which defines the
¡°Japanese¡± as a nation who ¡°renounces war¡± was essentially written by
idealistic American New Dealers¡ªwho are also the ¡°other¡± for the Japanese.
Then, the message of ¡°renunciations of war¡± prompts discourses outside of
¡°Japan,¡± namely to the ¡°other¡±. In other words, the definition of the
Japanese nation has a completely new form, and it has a global expanse.

The modern nation-state had tried to clarify the concept of hostility to
prevent civil wars as a response to the Thirty Years War, and in it there also
appears the constitution, the definition of the nation. However, in this era of
globalization, to mark those outside the nation as hostile¡ªin other words, to
deny the existence of the ¡°other¡± and create an enemy¡ªis impossible. Not
denying the existence of others and creating an enemy, but accepting the
existence of the ¡°other¡± and declaring ¡°[we] forever renounce war as a
sovereign right of the nation¡± in its own constitution, might allow the
overcoming of  modernism, which completes the mechanism of state as a political
institution monopolizing the use of violence. 

Article 9 is a declaration of the Japanese nation that ¡°You¡± and ¡°I¡± are
¡°the same human beings,¡± and I do not attack the ¡°other¡± who is the ¡°the
same human being.¡± This is an irreplaceable philosophy that overcomes European
modernism, and will ground the possibility of making a 21st century without
war.

The job of the artists is to express an ideal. As a person who engages for art,
I want to think through the philosophy of Article 9, which is outside
modernism, with Japanese, Americans, Asians, and all the people in the world.
And at first, this exhibition starts with its own aim; mounted outside Japan,
which is the ¡°other¡± for Japan, because Article 9 is exercised in its
communication with the ¡°other¡±.

So, let¡¯s step into the Atomic Sunshine, and deliberate. By reading a complex
historical situation, and examine the influence of Article 9 on post-war
art¡ªthe theme of this curatorial exhibition.

 
Shinya Watanabe is an independent curator based in New York. He acquired a MA
at New York University and has traveled to 34 countries. His main focus has
been the relationship of art and nation-state. He has curated numerous
exhibitions such as Another Expo ¨C Beyond the Nation-State, Action Painting
Street Battle! Ushio Shinohara and Ryoga Katsuma. He is also a chair of Atomic
Sunshine ¨C Article 9 and Japan Exhibition Committee.

[1] "Overcoming Modernism" reminds us of the discussion led by members of the
Kyoto School such as Kitaro Nishida in the magazine "Bungakukai (Literature
World)" in 1942, and the slogans such as "Gozoku Kyowa (Five Races under One
Union)." However, although I think the question of "Overcoming Modernism" is
not itself mistaken, the real problem is that post-war Japan could not surmount
the question of "Overcoming Modernism" as it was argued in 1942.

[1] In the book "Study of Shadows, Study of Windows," Douglas C. Lummis
comments on Whitney's utterance "We have been enjoying your atomic sunshine."
"Whitney was trying to let Japanese people accept this new constitution, not
only because this new constitution is excellent and theoretically demonstrated.
This constitution draft is also evidenced by the power of atomic bomb, which is
the biggest and most dreadful power in the world."

[2] Toyoharu Konishi. Kenpo Oshituke Ron No Maboroshi [The Phantom of
'Imposing' the Constitution]. Kodansha Gendai Shinsho, 2006. P. 12-13

[3] In addition, the author, Shinya Watanabe, confirmed that the underlined
part "Japan renounces it (war) as an instrumentality for settling its disputes
and even for preserving its own security" was deleted by Charles Louis Kades,
one of the main drafting members with Whitney, in process of drafting the
constitution, by the testimony of Beate Sirota Gordon, the drafting member of
Japanese Constitution.

[4] Kenpo Chosa Kai. Kenpo Seitei no Keika ni Kansuru Shouiinkai Dai 47 Kai
Gijiroku. The Record of the 47th Conference of the Establishing Process of the
Constitution]. Ohkurasho Insatukyoku, 1962

[5] About the question that MacArthur suggested Article 9 but mentioned that
the Article 9 was created by Shidehara in his 1964 autobiography: in the book
Two Thousand Days of MacArthur, Sodei Rinjiro states that because of the
outbreak of the Korean War, MacArthur needed to change the principle of
pacifism which he had written, so presented with this disgraceful situation,
MacArthur might have tried to make Shidehara the creator of Article 9.

[6] Max Weber, Translated by Ikutaro Shimizu. Shakaigau no Konpon Gainen
[Soziologische Grundbegriffe; Basic Concepts in Sociology] 1922 Iwanami Bunko,
1972. P88-89

[7] Carl Schmitt, Translated by Hiroshi Tanaka and Takeo Harada. Seijiteki
namonono Gainen[Der Begriff des Politischen] Duncker & Humbolt. M¨¹nchen, 1932
Miraisha, 1970 P14

[8] Emmanuel Levinas. Totality and Infinity Duquese University Press,
Pittsburgh. 1969 P47

[9] Emmanuel Levinas. Totality and Infinity P71

[10] Emmanuel Levinas. Totality and Infinity P87

[11] Emmanuel Levinas. Totality and Infinity P143-144

[12] Emmanuel Levinas. Totality and Infinity P306

[13] J¨¹rgen Habermas, Ernst Nolte and others. Translated by Kenichi Mishima
and others. Sugisarou to Shinai Kako ¨C Natizm to Doitu Rekisika Ronsou
[¡°Historikerstreit¡±, Die Dokumentation der Kontroverse um die Einzigartigkeit
der nationalsozialistischen Judenvernichtung] R. Piper GmbH &Co. M¨¹nchen 1987.
Jinbun Shoin, Kyoto. 1995

[14] ¡°Historickerstreit¡± P9-34

[15] ¡°Historickerstreit¡± P68

[16] Nirohiro Kato. Haisengo Ron [Theory of Post-War] Chikuma Bunko. Tokyo.
2005 P104-119

[17] Tetsuya Takahashi Sengo Sekinin Ron [Theory of Post-War Responsibility]
Kodansha Gakujyutu Bunko. Tokyo. P210-219


"Into the Atomic Sunshine" exhibition catalogue is available on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Atomic-Sunshine-Post-War-Constitution/dp/160461966X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199493236&sr=8-1


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org