TOKYO — Japanese people have been divided over whether to revise the Constitution since almost as soon as it was promulgated in 1946. The debate has centered on Article 9, the so-called peace clause. And it has been fundamentally miscast.

Article 9 comprises two paragraphs. In the first, Japan renounces “war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” This text tracks the language of the Charter of the United Nations, which has been ratified by almost all the countries of the world. In the second paragraph of Article 9, Japan renounces maintaining any “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential.” No other country has imposed such a restriction on itself.

Pacifists who oppose amending Article 9 say that to do so would mean reneging on Japan’s commitment to peace. But this is to mischaracterize the issue: Most proponents of a revision — I am among them — are not suggesting that Japan backtrack on its renunciation of war in the first clause of Article 9. We argue only for amending the second clause of Article 9, so that Japan can have a military force that is better able to defend both the country and international peace and security.

In 1954, the Japanese government created the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) in order to alleviate the United States’ burden of ensuring Japan’s security. At the time it argued for interpreting Article 9 (2) as recognizing Japan’s sovereign right to have a small military force. (The Supreme Court supported this reading in a 1959 ruling.) This construction — which has come to be known as the “minimum necessary level” — allowed the establishment of a force to defend Japan within its territory. But it did not allow the SDF to operate overseas. This is the reason that Japan could not join the coalition of multinational forces that fought against Saddam Hussein’s army during the 1990-1991 Gulf War, not even to provide logistical support.