South Korea's opposition parties on Saturday expressed concern about a revived militarism in Japan after its upper house enacted a controversial security legislation pushed by the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The enactment of the legislation, which 80 percent of Japanese opposes as it allows Jthe country to wage a war, caused great anxiety among many countries and people in Asia, Xinhua quoted Lee Jang-woo, spokesman of Saenuri Party, as saying.
The spokesman voiced great worry about possible "resurrection of militarism" that Japan implemented in the past in northeast Asia, saying he was worried that Abe may have inherited the "blood" of ancestors who were very bellicose and carried out the past militarism.
The controversial security bills, were passed by the upper house on Saturday to enable its troops to be dispatched overseas to engage in armed conflicts.
Japan's war-renouncing pacifist constitution, enacted after the end of World War II, bans its self-defence forces from doing so or exercising the right to collective self-defence.
Kim Young-rok, spokesman of South Korea's main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy, said Japan's pacifist constitution was toppled and Japan's conscience was trampled down by the dream of distorted hegemony.
More From This Section
The spokesman expressed a strong censure on the Abe cabinet for abandoning its pacifist constitution and seeking a way to a military power, urging the South Korean government to voice clear worries and regrets over the security legislation enactment.
Seoul's foreign ministry said Japan should maintain the spirit of the pacifist constitution, which has been sustained after the end of World War II, and contribute to regional peace and stability when deciding on and implementing its security and defence policy.
The ministry pointed out the "perfect respect" for a third country's sovereignty when Japan exercises the right to collective self-defence, which was specified in the revised guideline on the US-Japan defence cooperation.
It said Japan must gain call or consent from South Korea before the collective self-defence right is exercised for reasons related with South Korea's national interest and the security of the Korean Peninsula.