Having built economic and military muscle under the zealous patronage of the U.S. imperialists after the Second World War, Japan has made full military preparations for independently carrying out any war of aggression and laid a certain legal foundation for joining in other wars behind the facade of "the Pacifist Constitution", the white paper said, and went on:

What remains to be done by Japan now is just to readjust and round off domestic laws for launching overseas aggression at will anywhere in the world under the pretext of the "right to collective self-defence", unhindered by the "constitution".

The Japanese reactionaries' above-said moves are a wanton violation of norms of international law.

Those moves of the Japanese reactionaries are above all criminal acts of blatantly challenging the international conventions which confirmed Japan's state as a war criminal state and a defeated nation.

The Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945 clarifies such issues as the issue of making sure Japanese soldiers go back their home and lead a peaceful life after the total disarmament of the Imperial Japanese Army, the issue of making the Japanese government take all possible democratic measures inside the country, the issue of preventing Japan from having access to industry which can help it rearm itself for a war and the need for the Japanese government to immediately declare the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Army and the issue of making sincere efforts for its implementation.

The Potsdam Declaration became not just the unilateral declaration of the Allied Powers but a document agreed upon by a victor nation and a defeated nation through the Japanese government's series of official acceptances of the "notice on accepting Potsdam declaration" and "Japan's surrender document", and an international document of strong binding force that confined the position of Japan as a defeated nation under law.

The Japanese reactionaries' moves are acts of seriously threatening the principle on peaceful settlement of international disputes.

The "declaration on principle of international law on friendship and cooperation among countries in line with UN Charter" that was adopted as Resolution No. 2625 (XXV) at the 25th UN General Assembly on October 24, 1970 specified the principle on seeking peaceful settlement of international disputes by countries so as not to imperil global peace, security and justice, thus reaffirming the basic principle of the UN Charter on peaceful settlement of international disputes.

But the Japanese reactionaries have persistently moved to realize overseas aggression by force under their former spurious signboard which read "Japan would abstain once for all from threat by war and armed forces or recourse to the armed forces as a means for settling international disputes", which is specified in article 9 of the current constitution.

Japan's moves for retrogressive revision of domestic laws are criminal acts in breach of "the Pacifist Constitution" which was instituted in line with the international demand.

Even after the institution of the "Pacifist Constitution" the Japanese reactionaries, being displeased with it, have maneuvered by hook or by crook to revise it while "waiting for time to come" and make Japan "a country capable of possessing army and a country capable of fighting a war" under the constitution.

Japanese chief executive Abe at a press conference on May 15, 2014 stressed the need to have a new interpretation of the constitution, citing such pretexts that it is aimed to help overseas Japanese evacuate from dispute-torn areas, to cope with such threats as terrorism and cyber attack in cooperation with the international community under the banner of "pro-active pacifism" and "international cooperation" and to implement new "Japan-U.S. defence cooperation guidelines" that has faced a big change in the surrounding environment of Japan.

Clear is the aim sought by the Japanese reactionaries in giving up the retrogressive revision of the constitution and resorting to the method of changing the interpretation of the constitution.

Under the situation where there are growing domestic voices protesting against the retrogressive revision of the constitution and procedures for the revision require an approval by more than two thirds of members of the Diet and national referendum, Japan finds it hard to achieve the goal. So they now seek to clear the barrier of the constitution and realize their ambition for overseas aggression at any cost by employing an easier roundabout method.

The Japanese chief executive made the interpretation of article 9 of the constitution in favor of aggression and war. As a matter of fact, "the Pacifist Constitution" no longer exists in Japan.

However, in Japan the "Japan-U.S. defence cooperation guidelines" are above the "Pacifist Constitution", creating the abnormal situation where the guidelines hold sway over the institution and revision of all domestic laws.

As seen above, the desperate moves for the retrogressive revision of domestic laws are neither a simple revision of some phrases and expressions nor the revision for maintaining peace and security as touted by the Japanese chief executive.

This is an extremely dangerous bellicose act aimed to realize militarization and overseas expansion at any cost.