Second Meeting

Thursday, October 25, 2001

Meeting Agenda

1. Matters relating to a motion for approval of assignment of members to attend Open Hearing

Location for the next Open Hearing: Aichi Prefecture

Date: Monday, November 26, 2001

2. Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan (A Vision for Japan in the 21st Century)

After statements were heard from Prof. ONUMA Yasuaki and Prof. MORIMOTO Satoshi concerning the above matters, questions were put to them.

Informants

Members who put questions to Prof. ONUMA

Members who put questions to Prof. MORIMOTO


Main points of Prof. ONUMA's statement

1. The Case for Constitutional Revision from Protectionist standpoint

>> The present Constitution has played a major role in postwar Japan, both as a means of gaining the acceptance of the international community and as a cornerstone of the nation's economic development.

>> However, two problems have now become apparent with regard to the Constitution: [1] the self-deception with which the people have forced themselves to accept the contradiction between the absolute pacifism that existed when Article 9 was enacted, and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty; [2] one-nation pacifism, or the idea that all that matters is that Japan is at peace. The gap between the Constitution and reality has reached its limit, and the public has developed a cynical attitude toward the Constitution.

>> For these reasons, I advocate the approach of "revising the Constitution in order to protect it," i.e., carrying out revisions that are informed by the spirit of the present Constitution, based on an evaluation of its role. Further, the Constitution is an expression of the basic ideals of the state, and a new Constitution is necessary because in each generation the people should conduct the affairs of the state based on ideals that they themselves have determined.

2. Japan and the International Community, from the Enactment of the Constitution until the 1980s

>> When the Constitution was enacted, Japan was no more than a minor nation, and a certain kind of "pacifism" was widespread; the Japanese people had an intense aversion to war and were inclined to see themselves as having been victims rather than aggressors. There was also a strong admiration for everything American, and a popular belief in putting self-interest first.

>> The failure of the international order after World War I was caused by: [1] the weakness of collective security based on the League of Nations; [2] harsh and unrealistic peace terms; [3] the fact that the structure imposed by the victors in 1918 in order to establish peace was retained as the postwar international order; [4] American protectionism and isolationism.

>> After World War II, the following policies were adopted in light of these past failures: [1] a stronger collective security system based on the United Nations; [2] lenient peace terms; [3] adoption of a structure to establish peace with Japan and Germany that was separate from the postwar international order; [4] an open free-trade system in the United States.

3. The International Community at the End of the 20th Century (After the End of the Cold War)

>> After the Cold War ended, a system based on liberal democracy on a global scale was established under the unipolar domination of the United States, and there were increasing cross-border movements of information, economic transactions, and efforts to promote democracy and human rights. Also, East Asia gained greater economic power, and China increasingly became a superpower.

>> The limits of the UN-based collective security system became apparent, and it became normal for nations to exercise the rights of individual and collective self-defense, whereby each nation guarantees its own security. This paved a way to the creation of UN peacekeeping operations to fill the gaps in the security system, but these too have various limits, and problems have arisen.

>> Poverty, ethnic and religious conflicts, and other discontents built up on the "losing" side in the international community. The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11 of this year can be said to typify the explosion of these resentments.

4. Japan and the Constitution at the End of the 20th Century

>> At the end of the century, the postwar consciousness remained unchanged, including the tendency to admire and follow the United States. Various problems arose as a result, such as moral decline, a self-indulgent insistence on rights, and destruction of the environment.

>> Nor was there any change in the situation regarding Japan's diplomatic stance; that is to say, we continued to hold to a strict interpretation of Article 9 and merely to send the message "We will never again start a war" without having first acknowledged the nation's past war responsibility. Article 9 has a dual significance, in terms of Japan's self-defense and its active participation in the security of the international community, but we were unable to play an active diplomatic role because the debate over Article 9 did not distinguish between these two aspects.

5. The International Community, Japan, and the Constitution in the 21st Century

>> Japan should have lifted its freeze on substantial participation in UN peacekeeping forces during the 1990s, thereby enabling it to contribute actively to the international community. The question of security involves basic principles of the nation, and it is not good to deal with such issues on an ad hoc basis by reinterpreting the Constitution, as this causes the public to lose faith in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution should be revised because each generation has a right and a duty to conduct the affairs of the state based on ideals that they themselves have determined.


Main points of questions put to Prof. ONUMA

NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> I believe that the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11 are different in nature from previous international conflicts, which revolved around disputes between states. How do you view these attacks in relation to the UN-centered collective security that you advocate?

>> In response to the terrorist attacks, the United States is exercising the right of self-defense with the cooperation of other nations, but is it not necessary for the United Nations also to impose some form of sanctions?

>> You take the position that, among the factors behind the terrorist attacks, there is something like a backlash by developing nations against domination by the developed nations and against the disparity in wealth between the two groups. But there is also the view that, as a problem common to the whole world, terrorism can never be justified. Would you not agree that that is the more important perspective?
 

>> How should the Preamble of the Constitution be rewritten in light of the fact that the "[trust] in the justice and faith of the . . . peoples of the world" on which it is premised has been shaken by the recent terrorist attacks, and in light of the need to correct our one-nation pacifism? Also, if the Preamble were rewritten as it should be, would it not be incompatible with the present Article 9?
 

NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> In my view, in order to respond to incidents that transcend the framework of nation-states, such as the recent terrorist attacks in the United States, a decision-making system that transcends the nation-state is needed. What do you think is the best way to incorporate such decision-making into the Constitution and other legislation of Japan?

>> In order to dispel the doubts of the Japanese public about the right of self-defense and the Self-Defense Forces, I believe that, after first setting limits to the role of the Self-Defense Forces, we should make explicit provision for that role in the Constitution. It would be necessary, however, to gain the understanding of neighboring countries. What should Japan do to that end?
 

SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)

>> You expressed the view that Japan is yet to fulfil its war responsibility, but how do you regard the fact that, as interpreted by administrative agencies, the Atomic Bomb Survivors' Support Law is not applicable to survivors living in the Republic of Korea? Also, how do you regard the fact that Japan has not taken up the question of the responsibility of the United States, which dropped the atomic bombs?

>> You stated that Article 9 calls for active participation in the security of the international community, but what part of Article 9, specifically, were you referring to?
 

TSUZUKI Yuzuru (Liberal Party)

>> You advocate "security oriented toward international common values," but do "international common values" actually exist, given the very different civilizations and the disparities of wealth among the world's nations?

>> Do you consider that sending the Self-Defense Forces overseas under the Antiterrorism Special Measures Law corresponds to the "use of force [as] a sovereign right of the nation" that was renounced by Article 9? Also, do you consider that counteroffensive actions by members of the Self-Defense Forces participating in peacekeeping operations correspond to such a use of force?
 

YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The UN Charter and the Constitution of Japan both prohibit the use of force, but I think that in some respects the prohibition is developed further in the Japanese Constitution than in the UN Charter. What is your view in this regard? Also, when the Japanese Constitution was enacted, was there an awareness of what it had in common with, and how it differed from, the UN Charter?

>> As I understand it, the rights of individual and collective self-defense in the UN Charter (Article 51) are exceptional measures, with the use of force being prohibited in principle, but what was the process by which these measures were incorporated in the Charter? Also, have they not resulted in inconsistencies within the Charter?

>> With regard to the American military response to the recent terrorism, you commented that there are insufficient grounds for its being based on the right of individual self-defense, and that there are dangers therein. What, specifically, did you mean by this?
 

IMAGAWA Masami (Social Democratic Party)

>> Would you not agree that the pacifism of the Constitution was predicated on a UN-centered collective security system, not on a security system that depends on the United States? Also, what stages do you think should be passed through in order to achieve disarmament of individual nations, establishment of UN forces, and a shift to a collective security system?

>> Moves to send the Self-Defense Forces overseas often arise when there is an international crisis such as the recent terrorist attacks in the United States, but do not such moves lead to expansion of the Self-Defense Forces, and do they not therefore run contrary to the pacifist principle of the Constitution?
 

MATSUNAMI Kenshiro (New Conservative Party)

>> With over 1.6 million foreign residents, I believe that Japan today cannot continue to think of itself as a monoethnic nation. What is your view of this?

>> What do you think of the argument that we should accept refugees from Afghanistan? Also, since the definition of terrorism is not entirely clear, should it not be clarified?
 

KONDO Motohiko (21st Century Club)

>> How do you think the Constitution should be taught at the elementary and junior high school levels?

>> Would an inclusion describing war responsibility in our history textbooks constitute a message from Japan to neighboring countries about our war responsibility?

>> Between UN forces and multinational forces, which do you think is the more appropriate means of guaranteeing collective security under the United Nations? Also, under the present Constitution, can Japan participate in a multinational force?
 

Main points of Prof. MORIMOTO's statement

1. The International Community at the Beginning of the 21st Century

>> In the decade since the Cold War ended, efforts have been made to reconcile a unipolar structure, in which the United States has the controlling influence, and multilateralism.

>> As negative factors in globalization, the international community is facing such issues as regional conflicts, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, environmental problems, refugee problems, and infectious diseases.

>> Asia is also facing similar problems. In particular, the future of the two nuclear powers with large populations, China and India, will have a greater influence on peace and stability in Asia.

2. The Response to the Terrorist Attacks, and the Implications Thereof

>> The exercise of the right of individual self-defense by the United States in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 raises a number of questions: [1] Can a terrorist group, which is not a sovereign state, be the target of the exercise of the right of self-defense? [2] Does the situation meet the requirement of "urgency"?

>> The future course of the U.S. military operations is unclear, but their success or failure will determine the future direction of international order. If they succeed, American leadership and unilateralism will be strengthened. Conversely, if they fail, the United States will probably lapse into isolationism.

>> Whatever the outcome, a new international order will likely be formed, with the demarcation line being whether or not nations share the same values as the United States (such as the rule of law and justice, democracy, freedom, and the market economy).

>> I do not think that the outlook for the United Nations warrants optimism, in view of the fact that the American military actions are not based on a UN Security Council resolution, together with the fact that the United Nations' ability to perform its intended functions has been declining.

3. Issues Concerning Japan's Security

>> In seeking a vision for the nation, as a sovereign state, we should first build a clear national strategy by clarifying the national interest and our idea of the state, and then discuss the legal framework and other measures required to realize the national strategy.

>> In reviewing the legal framework and political constraints, we should consider revising Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and also making explicit provision in the Constitution for the right of self-defense, the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Prime Minister in regard to crisis management, the rights and duties of the people, and so on.

>> With regard to foreign policy, after first clearly establishing the national interest and a vision for the nation, we should, in particular, rebuild our Asian strategy and our diplomatic strategy relating to the United Nations and international cooperation.

>> With regard to the Japan-U.S. alliance, after first assessing threats and identifying changes in the international situation, we should redefine the alliance, focusing primarily on the desirable form of defense cooperation with a view to strengthening the alliance. Further, Japan's present defense capability is, in some respects, supplementary to the bilateral alliance, but we should reconsider this position in order to rebuild a highly independent and self-sustained defense capability, taking into account the possibility that the United States might not regard a problem in the area surrounding Japan as affecting its own national interest.

Main points of questions put to Prof. MORIMOTO

ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> I would like to hear your candid opinion of the contents of the Antiterrorism Special Measures Bill and the deliberation process.

>> In recent years, I think there has been an ongoing qualitative change in the traditional concept of security; for example, the concepts of "comprehensive security" and "human security" have been advocated. How do you think that Japan and the international community should respond to this situation?

>> The United Nations or NATO have intervened for humanitarian reasons in the Somalia problem, the Kosovo conflict, and the Rwandan civil war, among other situations. Do you think that it is right for the international community to intervene in domestic problems in this way? Also, what kind of framework and what kind of rules can be established for such interventions?

>> I believe that, in the future, Japan should develop its security policies so as to create a second axis with the other Asian nations, in addition to that formed by its alliance with the United States, in the same way that Britain has established its presence in the EU while maintaining its relationship with the United States. What is your view in this regard?
 

KOBAYASHI Kenji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> In the past, Japan has taken a passive stance to the resolution of international conflicts, but I believe that in the twenty-first century we should make an international contribution that is both flexible and clear, and that this should include exercising the right of collective self-defense. What is your view of this?

>> I believe that we should revise the Constitution to recognize the right of collective self-defense. In considering a vision for this nation in the twenty-first century, how do you think we should interpret Article 9?

>> During the deliberations in the House of Representatives on the Antiterrorism Special Measures Bill, the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents proposed an amendment requiring, in principle, prior approval by the Diet before the Self-Defense Forces are dispatched. Do you see an essential difference between this and the amendment proposed by the governing parties, which required only approval after the fact?
 

UEDA Isamu (New Komeito)

>> I believe that the widening gap between the "have" nations and the "have-not" nations is leading to international terrorism, among other threats, and that in order to avoid this danger it will be necessary to correct American unilateralism and create a system that includes the developing nations. What is your view in this regard?

>> With the end of the Cold War, I think it has become more difficult to deal with every one of an increasingly diverse array of threats. How do you think the Japan-U.S. alliance, and Japan itself, should respond to these threats?
 

FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> You advocate incorporating China politically and economically into Asia. In my view, however, that would be difficult, and China should, rather, be encouraged to transform itself into a democracy. What is your view in this regard?

>> Since the end of the Cold War, it has become easier for the United Nations to perform its function of maintaining international peace and security. It is the Liberal Party's position that dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces should be based either on the right of self-defense or on a UN resolution. I would like to hear your views in this regard.

>> Do you think that the Self-Defense Forces can be dispatched to support U.S. military action on this occasion under Japan's right to individual self-defense?
 

HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I do not believe that all the nations of the world are solidly united in support of the Anglo-American military action in Afghanistan; what is your view of this? Also, I would like to hear what negative impacts you think the U.S. retaliatory strikes will have on the world.

>> Now is the time for the United Nations to exercise its function of collective security, and efforts should be made to strengthen UN functions through the response to the current situation. Further, I believe that, as a nation whose Constitution contains Article 9, Japan should make a nonmilitary contribution toward that goal. What are your views on these points?

>> I believe that the Antiterrorism Special Measures Bill recognizes the right of collective self-defense, because the support measures that it stipulates in relation to the current U.S. military action are no different from those extended to the U.S. military by NATO when it decided to exercise the right of collective self-defense. What is your view of this?
 

KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> I think that the true role of the United Nations is to prevent international conflicts before they happen. What is your view in this regard?

>> You have stated in a published article "As the concept of security changes in nature, importance is being placed on nonmilitary fields such as preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping activities." Would you not agree that these are the very fields in which Japan should make an active contribution?

>> In return for India's and Pakistan's cooperation with the offensive against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States has lifted its economic sanctions on these two nuclear powers, but will this not result in allowing nuclear proliferation?
 

MATSUNAMI Kenshiro (New Conservative Party)

>> I would like to ascertain a basic point: Why is the Northern Alliance represented at the United Nations, when it effectively controls only about 5 percent of Afghanistan's territory?

>> In light of the fact that the U.S. strikes extend over the whole territory of Afghanistan, I surmise that they have another purpose besides eradicating terrorism. What is your view in this regard?

>> I think that when the United States, following its own value system, attacks the Pashtuns, whose customs set a value upon "hospitality to a guest" but "retaliation for an attack", it is an instance of Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations." What is your view of this?
 

KONDO Motohiko (21st Century Club)

>> Generally speaking, what are the conditions under which Japan can exercise the right of individual self-defense? Also, the United States has characterized the current attacks on Afghanistan as an exercise of the right of individual self-defense; what do you think about this?

>> What do you think will bring the current U.S. attacks on Afghanistan to an end?

>> After the U.S. military action is over, what nation or organization will take the initiative in rebuilding Afghanistan?