Fourth Meeting

Thursday, March 9, 2000

Meeting Agenda

1. Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan (Details of how the Constitution was formulated)

After the two expert informants, Professor KOSEKI Shoichi and Professor MURATA Koji, expressed their views on the above matters, they were asked questions.

Informants:

  • KOSEKI Shoichi, Professor, Faculty of Law, Dokkyo University
  • MURATA Koji, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University

Members who asked questions to Professor Koseki:

Members who asked questions to Professor Murata:


Main points of Professor Koseki's Statement

>> Origins of the argument that the Constitution was imposed

>> Facts behind why the Constitution is viewed as having been imposed

>> Background of the view of the Constitution as imposed

>> Reasons why GHQ hurried the formulation and enactment of the Constitution

>> Reasons why the Constitution cannot simply be interpreted as having been imposed

>> Relationship between the imposed Constitution argument and views of postwar Japan
 

Main points of questions put to Professor Koseki

NAKAGAWA Shoichi, Liberal Democratic Party

>> I doubt if there was any connection between the 'Byrnes reply' and the perceived necessity of constitutional reform, because U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes put out his reply on the interpretation of the Postdam Declaration well before Japan's surrender, making for a considerable lapse of time between it and the drafting of the Constitution.

>> I think that General MacArthur advocated the retention of the Imperial system to hold down the overall policy cost of the Occupation. What do you think about this?

>> Was not the word 'caste' in the GHQ draft removed because there was no caste system in Japan?

>> Was it not the Japanese side who deleted from the GHQ draft the state-ownership-of-land provision because of its deep connection with communist ideas?

>> Back then, I wonder if there was any country whose constitution had such clear provisions for the protection of the rights of foreigners, as was in the GHQ draft. What is your view on this?

>> Colonel Kades stated later on that the GHQ in its draft included the unicameral legislature for Japan largely as a bargaining tool. Do you agree?

>> What makes you take up these four cases mentioned just above as instances which, in your view, make it naive to pronounce the judgement that they were imposed?

>> Do you believe that there is valid legal continuity in the transition to the current Constitution from the Imperial (Meiji) Constitution?

>> I cannot agree with the position that if the contents of the Constitution are good, it does not matter if it was imposed.

>> Occupied Japan was not a country that could have a constitution in its own right. Therefore, the current one can hardly be a Constitution befitting Japan as an independent State. Do you agree?
 

ISHIGE Eiko, Democratic Party of Japan

>> Could you indicate the problems related to the protection of human rights in the Matsumoto draft?

>> Didn't GHQ have a broader understanding of Japanese public opinion than is generally recognized?

>> It has been reported that within GHQ there was a move to spell out the rights-of-women provisions in the Constitution. Could you tell us why this move came to nothing?
 

KURATA Eiki, New Komeito and Reformers' Network

>> Now that more than half a century has passed since the Constitution was enacted, what can we learn from the entire process of drafting it?

>> What is the significance of the fact that public support in this country has been steadily growing stronger the current Constitution?

>> What is your view of the influence of the issue of the continuation of the Emperor system on the Constitution-making process?

>> Do you think there has been any connection between the war-renunciation clause of the Constitution and the exemption of the Emperor from responsibility for the war on the one hand and the buildup of U.S. bases on Okinawa on the other?

>> Will you explain your position that certain amendments are needed for the current Constitution but not now?
 

NAKAMURA Eiichi, Liberal Party

>> My view is that the role of GHQ in the establishment of the Constitution under the Occupation was so coercive that it was essentially giving orders.

>> Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president, remarked:

"No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation. It was imperative, therefore, that a practicable means of amending the Constitution be provided."

What is your view on this?
 

SASAKI Rikukai, Japanese Communist Party

>> What do you think about the argument that the current Constitution is null and void in that it came into being in Occupied Japan, i.e., under abnormal conditions contrary to the Hague Convention clauses on the laws and customs of war on land?

>> I think that provisions such as renunciation of war and sovereignty of the people reflected world trends at that time. What is your view of this interpretation?

>> Doesn't the debate on the revision of Article 9 have its origins in the intentions of the United States itself?
 

ITO Shigeru, Social Democratic Party

>>Our position is that rather than being bogged down in ideological disputes, we should discuss the Constitutional matters with a vision of the future for Japan. What do you think?

>> There are various arguments about Article 9, which we have to consider not only from the perspective of interpretation but also from the viewpoint of practical diplomacy. Don't you think that the promotion of world peace is the most important consideration?
 

Main points of Professor Murata's Statement

>> Validity of revising the Constitution under the Occupation (whether constitutional revision infringed the Hague Convention clauses on the laws and customs of war on land)

>> The relationship between MacArthur's strategic vision in the Far East and the article on the renunciation of war

>> The confusion of the debate on Article 9 in the absence of a definition of 'war of aggression'

>> The background and significance of the provision that "The Prime Minister and other Ministers of State must be civilians." (Article 66, paragraph 2) which the Imperial Diet introduced as part of its amendments

>> The appropriateness of the provision's expression that "The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People, ..." (Article 1)

>> The appropriateness of the text of the Preamble to the Constitution


Main points of questions put to Professor Murata

SUGIURA Seiken, Liberal Democratic Party

>> I would like to ask for your opinion on the division into three categories of arguments over the Constitution: namely, the revisionist position, the protectionist position, and the pro-argument position.

>> What do you think about the argument that traditional Japanese values should be embodied in the Constitution?

>> What is your opinion concerning the view that new 21st century-oriented concepts such as the duties accompanying rights and coexistence with nature should be incorporated in the Constitution?
 

FUJIMURA Osamu, Democratic Party of Japan

>> Can we take it that you have a critical view of the "imposed Constitution" argument?

>> How did the renunciation of the wars of self-defense, which was in MacArthur's original three principles, come to be dropped from the GHQ draft?

>> When the so-called Ashida amendment was made, Ashida Hitoshi did not really intend that this should open the way for Japan to acquire a self-defense force, did he?

>> What was GHQ's real motive for hurrying through the drafting of the Constitution?

>> What is your view on the significance of non-specialists taking part in the discussion on the Constitution?
 

FUKUSHIMA Yutaka, New Komeito and Reformers' Network

>> The revision of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Meiji Constitution) cannot be deemed as having been implemented with the agreement of all the Japanese people. What is your view on this?

>> Wasn't the prime objective of the revision of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan to preserve the Emperor system, and the other provisions no more than a facade?

>> Why has the present Constitution never been revised?

>> I think the reason the Japanese people have avoided debating the Constitution lies in their fear of a return to the militarism of the prewar period. Do you agree?
 

NAKAMURA Eiichi, Liberal Party

>> You seem to think that there are certain problems with the preamble to the Constitution? What are the reasons for this?

>> Putting aside revision of fundamental concepts, inappropriate words and phrases in the Constitution should be revised as soon as possible. Do you agree?

>> When debating the Constitution, what kind of view of the nation should we take?
 

SASAKI Rikukai, Japanese Communist Party

>> Wasn't General MacArthur's initial view that Japan should not be allowed to have any war-fighting capacity inconsistent with America's policy towards Japan at that time?

>> What was the background for the U.S. decision to encourage Japan to rearm itself?

>> I think that the argument for the revision of Article 9 has its origin in the postwar shift in the U.S. strategy toward Asia. What is your view on this?
 

ITO Shigeru, Social Democratic Party

>> What coordinates should we employ when we discuss the Constitution?

>> Constitution's Article 1 should define the sovereignty of the people. Do you agree?