Meeting Agenda
1. Deputy Chairman NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents) reported on the Open Hearing held in Okinawa on April 22, 2002.
2. Based in part on the above report, brainstorming discussions on the security of Japan were held.
Main points of comments by members who participated in the Open Hearing (in order of presentation)
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I was made aware that in Okinawa, which experienced great loss of civilian lives in the ground battle during the last war, there is a strong attitude that "the army does not protect civilians."
>> Speakers at the Open Hearing called for compliance with the Constitution in order to protect fundamental human rights. I believe that this position arises from the hardships suffered by Okinawans, including the U.S. military occupation.
>> A speaker at the Open Hearing commented that community service is undertaken voluntarily, and that she could not agree with making it a compulsory part of the educational curriculum. After the hearing, I told her that the purpose of the proposal was to teach the concept of community service to students at the stage of compulsory education, and not to force anything on the public.
>> Okinawa made a remarkable recovery after the war, and Japan, too, has become an economic power. Now that we have reached the close of a chapter, as it were, I want to conduct a debate on the future of the Constitution with the Japanese people, including the people of Okinawa, in terms of what responsibilities Japan should fulfill in the world community.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Even though this Commission is not empowered to initiate constitutional amendments, at the hearing in Okinawa the view was expressed that the Open Hearings are merely a formality to prepare the way for revision of the Constitution, but this is a misconception. Also, a wide range of opinion was expressed, and I felt that freedom of speech was being upheld.
>> At the Open Hearing, in response to my asking whether the Constitution should be amended to provide for "new human rights," it was suggested that this is a stratagem to pave the way for revisions that would include Article 9. Particularly in light of such views, it is necessary to discuss Article 9 in a direct way.
>> The proposed "Bill to Respond to Armed Attacks" gives the Prime Minister powers similar to "execution by proxy," allowing him or her, under certain circumstances, to execute response measures that would normally be implemented by local public bodies or other agencies. In this connection, in a conversation with the Governor of Okinawa, he pointed out the need for coordination with local governments. This leads to the question of how we should regard the local autonomy stipulated in the Constitution--a question which should be discussed by this Commission.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> No topic in the constitutional debate should be considered taboo. I think it is unfortunate that those for and those against constitutional revision do not listen to each other's arguments and have not yet broken free from a Cold War mentality.
>> I see no contradiction between dedicating ourselves to peace diplomacy and explicitly providing in the Constitution for the right of self-defense, which secures the minimum strength necessary to back those efforts.
>> An association for Okinawa United Nations research and action advocates inviting the United Nations to establish its Asian headquarters in Okinawa, which would help convey the Okinawan spirit of peace to the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not been supportive of this idea, however, on the grounds, for instance, that Okinawa is not conveniently accessible and that the UN University is already located in Tokyo. But I see this proposal as the cornerstone of a peace strategy for Asia.
>> With regard to the three emergency response bills, I think that politicians have a duty to prepare for any contingency.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Peace and human rights have long been under threat in Okinawa, where the Constitution was not applied until the islands reverted to Japan, and where even now there is the problem of the bases; thus, obviously the Okinawans have a keen desire to see the principles of the Constitution put into practice. We should investigate the facts as to why the Constitution's ideals have not been realized in Okinawa.
>> Comments received on the three emergency response bills included the view that the system will restrict the public's freedom and human rights under conditions that are defined only vaguely. Okinawans have experienced the fact that an army does not protect the people. The Constitution, which is based on a self-critical awareness of that fact, prohibits war or the use of force as a sovereign right of the nation, and also prohibits the possession of a standing army. I believe that the proposed legislation is absolutely unacceptable under this Constitution.
>> Unless we seriously heed Okinawa's experiences and its present situation as we conduct our investigations in this Commission, we will have no answer to the criticism voiced in the Okinawan press, that is, "The Open Hearing gives the impression of an attempt to create an alibi for revision of the Constitution by going through the formality of listening to public opinion."
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> Many speakers pointed out that the Preamble and Article 9 of the Constitution exist because of self-critical reflection on the tremendous loss of civilian life, especially in the ground battle in Okinawa and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
>> The emergency legislation is being justified on the grounds "Prevention is better than the cure," but it is the role of politicians to work for peace steadily, day by day, and thus not get us into a situation that needs a remedy.
>> In pursuing investigations in this Commission, I intend to take to heart the statements by some speakers that Okinawans consider they won the Peace Constitution by their own struggle.
Main points of comments by members of the Commission (in order of presentation)
NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We need to base our thinking about security issues on the reality in the international community, that is, the fact that peace is maintained by a balance of power, or not allowing a power vacuum to develop anywhere.
>> The Constitution does not clearly establish the status of the Self-Defense Forces as an entity that protects the lives and property of the people, and this could be called a defect. It leads to confusion in the public debate on the Constitution and security, and there is thus a need for clarification.
>> The Research Commission on the Constitution exists to investigate what form the Constitution should take, and also to examine the application of laws from the viewpoint of whether the Constitution is being observed. As such, the Commission should be made a permanent body.
TAKAICHI Sanae (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is a mistake to think that peace exists as a given in the international community. To be ready for any contingency, a nation must establish a system capable of protecting its independence and the lives and property of its people.
>> We should add to the Preamble the principle that Japan will cooperate actively and unsparingly in efforts to build peace.
>> The state has a duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens. To that end, (a) we should stipulate expressly in the Constitution that, in the event of an actual or possible attack by a foreign nation or other aggressor, Japan can exercise the right of belligerency as a right of self-defense; (b) we should stipulate expressly that the Self-Defense Forces have the status of a national army and that their duties include self-defense and international contribution; and (c) we should guarantee civilian control over the decision to exercise the right of belligerency as a right of self-defense.
>> The status of the right of diplomatic protection should be stated clearly in the Constitution.
MATSUZAWA Shigefumi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We should make explicit provision in the Constitution for a basic structure to guarantee Japan's security as an independent state.
>> If we cannot revise the Constitution immediately, we should first enact a "Basic Law on Security" to clarify security-related principles and then, based thereon, enact legislation related to emergency measures, laying down a set of emergency response laws and providing for cooperation with the United Nations.
>> In revising the Constitution, we should change the title of Chapter II from "Renunciation of War" to "Security." We should stipulate in Article 9 that Japan will not wage a war of aggression (Paragraph 1), that as an independent state Japan possesses the right of self-defense and a self-defense army, which are under civilian control (Paragraph 2), and that Japan will cooperate fully in UN peacekeeping operations (Paragraph 3); further, we should declare that Japan will lead the world in seeking to eliminate weapons of mass destruction (Paragraph 4).
>> In Paragraph 2, I think that we should simply stipulate "the right of self-defense" without distinguishing between an individual and a collective right. Further, I think that the actual substance of a particular exercise of the right of self-defense should be left to a political judgment at the time.
SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Constitution contains no concrete provisions on international cooperation which could underpin assistance for democratization, preventive diplomacy, civic peace activities, and so on. There is a need for provisions indicating how the high spiritual ideals of the Preamble are to be concretely embodied.
>> Japan's actual efforts toward building peace do not live up to the spirit of the Constitution. For example, our diplomatic stance regarding peace in Palestine amounts to a criminal silence, and our efforts relating to international humanitarian law and the International Court of Justice cannot be called adequate either.
>> We should not only advocate making the ideals of Article 9 widely known overseas; we should also take concrete steps in this direction, e.g., organizing courses on the Constitution for foreign residents of Japan, and providing assistance to send Japanese constitutional scholars to East Timor.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The existing Constitution sets forth clear ideals concerning the peace and security of this country. It says that we will work actively to build world peace while also seeking to ensure our own security using peaceful means, based on the justice and faith of the peoples of the world. The present realities that conflict with these ideals, such as the existence of the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S.-Japan alliance, need to be resolved in a way that is consistent with the ideals of the Constitution.
>> In debating the three emergency response bills, we should be aware that they establish a system of cooperation with the United States and thus risk dragging the Japanese people into a conflict, and also that the other Asian nations have expressed wariness and criticism of the proposals.
>> I cannot agree with the idea of making the Research Commission on the Constitution a permanent body.
FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)
>> We should state clearly in the Constitution that we will defend our nation ourselves, and that we will participate actively in a UN-centered system of cooperation for international peace.
>> With regard to restriction of the people's rights in an emergency, this should be based on criteria other than "the public welfare."
>> With regard to the proposed emergency response laws, the legislation should be consolidated systematically based on the recognition that there are various levels of "emergency" and that each needs to be addressed by an appropriate level of response.
KOBAYASHI Kenji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We should make explicit provision in the Constitution for responding to military or related emergencies, because, given the nature of the international situation today, it is difficult to respond effectively by enacting laws to deal with specific problems as they arise, as we did in the past.
>> In debating the three emergency response bills, we should give priority to examining the relationship with the U.S. armed forces, in order to facilitate their activities in Japan.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With regard to Article 9, the interpretation that the Self-Defense Forces are constitutional became established through a wide-ranging debate. At the same time, however, it is also true that there exists an irresponsible concept of peace.
>> In pursuing the security debate, we need to take into account the fact that a certain amount of armed force contributes to building peace, and the fact that the peace of Japan and its neighbors has been preserved by the existence of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and the U.S. bases.
NAKAMURA Tetsuji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Cabinet Legislation Bureau's interpretation regarding the exercise of the right of collective self-defense lacks a clear rationale. Also, it is problematic that there has been almost no debate on this subject in the Diet, which has the primary right to interpret the Constitution.
>> Under international law, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and the presence of U.S. bases in Japan constitute an exercise of the right of collective self-defense. When we ignore this fact and maintain that Japan cannot exercise the right of collective self-defense, the result is that we find ourselves meeting America's requirements without limit, which is not in Japan's national interest. I believe that the national interest will be best served by thinking in strict and limited terms, in keeping with the intent of the Preamble and Article 9, and devising concrete measures within that framework.
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
>> In the debate on security, there are two opposing views: that violence should never be answered with violence under any circumstances, or that violence should be met with limited violence in the form of legitimate self-defense. I am one who subscribes to the latter view.
>> The position that one takes on a question like this depends on one's personal way of life and values, and it is difficult to reach a uniform conclusion. Consequently, I think that, for the present, we should continue to engage in a wide-ranging debate on security, while firmly maintaining Article 9.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I think that the contradictions in the Constitution can be seen in a concentrated form in Okinawa. I am referring to the fact that the ideals of the Preamble, which is premised on building world peace centered on the United Nations, are a long way from reality, and as shown in the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.
>> By enacting the Law Concerning Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan and the Antiterrorism Special Measures Law, Japan has fulfilled a certain role in America's Far East strategy. In deliberating on the three emergency response bills, we should recognize that security is an issue to be decided by Japan itself, and we should conduct a thorough debate in the Diet, based on an awareness of what constitutes the foundations of a state.
>> We should make explicit provision in the Constitution for the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, rather than dealing with this on the basis of interpretation.
KONNO Azuma (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Problem areas in the three emergency response bills include the definition of "emergency," civilian control, decentralization of power, and restriction of human rights.
>> One can say that Japan's thinking on security is in a state of flux, in that the existing Constitution, whose basic approach is that we should endeavor to prevent military emergencies, does not postulate an emergency occurring or how to respond to an emergency, but at the same time the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty does postulate the occurrence of an emergency.
>> Together with actively pursuing independent peace diplomacy, especially preventive diplomacy, Japan should review the nature of its alliance with the United States, which could potentially cause this nation to bring an emergency on itself.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> One background factor to the opposition to revision of Article 9 seems to be a mistrust of the military authorities owing to the fact that, in the last war, the military was allowed to get out of control. It should be recognized that, based on the existing Constitution's provisions for civilian control, the Diet and the people are able to exercise adequate control.
>> To trust in the justice and faith of the peoples of the world is not a good assessment of reality, given the present international situation. Instead, we should establish Japan's security arrangements by putting our trust in the Japanese people, who are firm believers in the pacifist and democratic principles espoused by the existing Constitution, and also by taking the viewpoint that it is the mission of the state to protect the people.
BANNO Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It is our duty as politicians to map out responses to critical situations, having studied such situations from every angle with a sound crisis management approach. Further, where these studies reveal points that cannot be dealt with under existing laws, the laws should be revised to enable an appropriate response.
>> The contents of the Constitution should not require a difficult process of interpretation before one can understand them. The Constitution should be made readily understandable to the people.
TSUCHIYA Shinako (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> At present, we are forced to respond to many situations on the basis of interpreting the Constitution, and this, I think, has made it difficult for the public to understand the Constitution. We should create a Constitution which is readily understandable to the public, and in which the criteria for Japan's conduct are clear to the rest of the world.
>> The Constitution is being actively discussed in the Diet, but I do not think that there has been nearly enough popular debate. Each Diet member should put out a message about the Constitution in his or her own district.
>> I believe that it is not possible to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces overseas under the existing Constitution. We should carry out revisions without delay, both to make the Constitution easy to understand and to incorporate the right of collective self-defense.
UEDA Munenori (Social Democratic Party)
>> Since the Cold War ended, there has been a shift in thinking about security from the old idea of a balance between opposing military blocs, to an approach based on multilateral trust and cooperation, with the key perspective being that of "human security," which encompasses human rights, economic issues, the environment, and so on. Such thinking is consistent with the Constitution's ideal of peace without the use of military force.
>> The most realistic method of creating a new international order is to embody the spirit of the Peace Constitution in concrete policy measures. These include: (a) a declaration by the Diet that Japan renounces war; (b) enactment of a Basic Law on Peace; (c) scaling back U.S. military bases, especially in Okinawa; (d) enactment of a Basic Law on Overseas Development Assistance; (e) breaking free of the bilateral U.S.-Japan alliance; (f) creating a Northeast Asian Nuclear-Free Zone.
>> In particular, the groundwork for a Northeast Asian Nuclear-Free Zone is already in place; that is, some countries have declared themselves nuclear-free. I believe that there is a strong possibility of this concept becoming a reality.
>> The emergency response laws are a barbarism. They go against the tide of history, of humanity's striving through the ages to build peace.