Subcommittee on Japan's Role in International Society (Third Meeting)

Thursday, May 9, 2002

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning Japan's role in international society

After a statement was heard from Mr. TERASHIMA Jitsuro concerning the above matters, questions were put to him; this was followed by discussion among the members.

Informant

Members who put questions to Mr. TERASHIMA

Main points of Mr. TERASHIMA's statement

1. Japan in the twentieth century: An overall assessment

>> As an overall assessment, twentieth-century Japan's diplomatic policy and international relations can be summed up in the phrase "alliances with Anglo-Saxon nations." In other words, Japan became a member of the group of major powers by forming an alliance with the United Kingdom, and it recovered from defeat in World War II and achieved its subsequent growth as an ally of the United States.

>> Japan therefore has the perception that its success was due to its alliances with Anglo-Saxon nations. Such an experience is unique among the nations of Asia.

2. Points to note in thinking about the Japan-U.S. alliance in the twenty-first century

>> Based on this perception, some people believe that Japan should continue to place importance on its alliance with the United States in the twenty-first century, while others are wary of such an approach. Whichever position one adopts, when considering the future of the Japan-U.S. alliance, the following points must be borne in mind:

>> First, the Japan-U.S. relationship is not a self-contained bilateral one; relations with China must always be taken into account. In recent years, there has been a fundamental change in American strategy in Asia. In view of China's new status as an economic and military power, Washington has shifted the emphasis that it formerly placed solely on Tokyo, and it is now pursuing a relative game, placing importance on both Tokyo and Beijing. Japan must steer a course while situated between these two major powers, the United States and China.

>> Second, the Japan-U.S. alliance has played a very large role in Japan's security in the fifty or more years since the war, but we must now focus on the next fifty years and redesign the alliance, clearheadedly and without clinging to fixed ideas. In so doing, we must take into account two points that are the accepted thinking internationally: (a) it is not normal for a foreign military force to be stationed for a long time in an independent country; and (b) the United States will protect Japan only within the framework of its own strategy and domestic public opinion at the time that a situation arises.

>> Third, we must approach the international community with our own autonomous identity, instead of viewing it through the filter of the United States. Japan's relations with the international community should be based on an "open nationalism" capable of gaining the understanding and empathy of neighboring countries, while, at the same time, we must develop a more critical awareness of issues in relation to the United States.

3. Proposals concerning Japan's security policy

>> To express its vision of the nation that Japan wishes to be, Tokyo should place review of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty on the agenda for discussion with Washington, focusing especially on revision of the Status of Forces Agreement and phased reduction of U.S. military bases in Japan.

>> While maintaining an exclusively defensive capacity, Japan should redefine its Asia strategy, beginning with its military cooperation with the United States.

>> Japan should work to create a multilateral forum, based on the principle of preventive diplomacy, among the East Asian nations, including Russia and China, and should structure it in a way that leads to involvement of the United States.

Main points of questions and comments to Mr. TERASHIMA

HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> I agree with your statement that we should review the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, but I think that this question cannot be separated from that of Article 9. In my personal opinion, Japan's position in the international community should be set forth in Article 9, and the Preamble and Article 9 should be revised. What are your views in this regard?

>> Japan's present diplomatic and security policies are too concerned with power politics, issues in our relationship with China, and the like. In future, we should divide policy-making into different arenas, such as economic security and human security. In the field of global governance, which includes, for example, the environment and disarmament, I believe that there are a number of arenas in which Japan can play a central role and conduct its own independent diplomacy. In concrete terms, how should we address these tasks?


NAKAMURA Tetsuji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> The government interpretation of Article 9 presently in force, which prohibits the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, harms the national interest by, among other things, leading to Japan-U.S. cooperation that has no limits or governing principles. With regard to the right of self-defense, I believe that we should not distinguish between collective and individual self-defense, and that we should exercise the right of self-defense with restraint in accordance with the ideals of the Preamble and Article 9. I would like to hear your view as to whether, in order to achieve such an approach while valuing the national interest, it would be better to reinterpret the Constitution or, alternatively, to revise it.

>> With regard to the multilateral forum on East Asian security that you advocate, I suggest that we should seek broader-based cooperation, e.g., by including India, a major democracy that is friendly to Japan. What do you think of this? In your view, should the first step be to create a forum among Japan's neighbors?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> I recently gave a short speech in the United States on "the two disappointments," namely, (a) Japan's disappointment in the United States due to the delay in implementation of the Bush administration's policy of reducing U.S. military bases in Japan; and (b) America's disappointment in Japan, due to Japan's inability to take further measures to meet U.S. expectations in the field of security. I believe that there is a considerable gap between the perceptions and expectations of the Japanese public and those of the American public with regard to cooperative arrangements under the Japan-U.S. alliance. What do you think we should do to find a way out of this situation?

>> I think that the plan to establish the Asian headquarters of the United Nations in Okinawa is an important topic for the first half of the twenty-first century. What is your view of this?


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> After the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was concluded, in developing its East Asia strategy, for a long time the United States was conscious of the former Soviet Union's forces in the Far East, but with the collapse of the Cold War structure the emphasis has shifted to the presence of China. What policy do you think the United States will adopt toward China in the future?

>> In our present relationship with the United States, Japan is sometimes even derisively referred to as "the fifty-first state," due in large part to the difference in the two nations' economic prosperity. How do you view the outlook for the United States continuing its alliance with Japan, given our present situation?

>> Due to the consolidation of the Law Concerning Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, among other factors, the nature of the Japan-U.S. security structure has changed and the "Far East clause" has become a mere formality. Japan is now being incorporated into an American global strategy whose scope extends to the whole of Asia and even the Middle East. I believe that Japan, as an independent nation, should have an identity independent of the United States. What kind of concepts or mentality do you think this requires?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> In my view, Japan's foreign relations are marked by: (a) weak autonomy, (b) underdeveloped ties with the other Asian nations, and (c) insufficient commitment to building peace, and these weaknesses may underlie the need to redesign the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which you advocate. In redesigning the Security Treaty, what role do you think should be played by the ideal of "nonnuclear pacifism," which you also advocate?

>> The problem with the three emergency-response bills under consideration is that they are based on a position decisively in favor of the use of armed force. After the last war, Japan regained a place in the international community because it was trusted never to wage war again. But the position adopted in the emergency-response debate is contrary to that faith, is it not?

>> I believe that the approach of maintaining peace through international cooperation, which is proclaimed in both the Constitution and the UN Charter, should be sustained in the twenty-first century. What is your view of this?


ABE Tomoko (Social Democratic Party)

>> It seems you hold the view that we should revise Paragraph 2 of Article 9, but are there not steps that we should take first in our policy toward Asia, such as achieving an adequate understanding with the other Asian nations in relation to the past war?


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> Why is it that the Japanese cannot think strategically?

>> I think that Japan should respond to security issues in a way that is timely, appropriate, and autonomous, taking into account the international situation. What are your views in this regard?

>> What are your views regarding revision of the Constitution? Also, if you are in favor of revision, what specific points do you think should be revised?


ISHIKAWA Yozo (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> During the overseas survey mission two years ago, we heard from Ms. Shiono Nanami, a writer who lives in Italy, to the effect that "Law should be made to fit people [rather than vice versa], and it should be revised as necessary." In light of this comment, I would argue that, since Japan's present domestic and international circumstances are very different from those at the time the Constitution was enacted, we cannot avoid constitutional revision. Do you agree?

>> With regard to the three emergency-response bills currently under deliberation, should we not conduct the debate after first clearly identifying the various issues concerning the pacifist principles of the Constitution and Article 9?


SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> The Constitution did not envision the emergence of an enormously powerful China, but I think that, in concrete terms, several methods of addressing this situation can be considered. They include: (a) achieving a balance by strengthening our cooperative ties with the Southeast Asian nations, (b) forming a "union of peoples in areas surrounding China", and (c) forming an alliance with China. What are your views with regard to these methods?

>> The United States is currently taking a stance in its foreign relations that could lead to a clash of civilizations, and its diplomatic stance seems to divide the world in two along the lines of Christian and non-Christian. Under these circumstances, what influence can Japan have on U.S. foreign policy, and how much influence can it have?


TSUCHIYA Shinako (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> I think that as long as the constitutional debate remains confined to the Diet it has reached an impasse, and that we need to create neutral think tanks that can make recommendations on security and related issues. What should we do to create such a think tank in Japan? Also, would not creating such a think tank be a step toward creating the multilateral forum that you have proposed?

>> I believe that information technology is very significant as a means for the public to reflect its will directly in government. From that perspective, how do you view the present system of electing Diet members, the bicameral system, and so on?

Main points of comments by members of the Subcommittee (in order of presentation)

AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> The right of collective self-defense is a complex concept with many ramifications, and there is evidently some confusion in the way it is being understood. I believe that it contains three layers: at its core, (a) sending troops overseas and using armed force; in the next layer, (b) actions that are unified with the use of armed force; and in the outer layer, (c) actions that come very close to being unified with the use of armed force, but are not actually unified with it.

>> I believe that the contents of (a) are not permissible, even by means of constitutional amendments. Also, it is said that the existing interpretation of the Constitution authorizes only the contents of (c), but I believe that there is room for further study of this question with regard to the contents of (b).


NAKAMURA Tetsuji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> Unlike Mr. Akamatsu, I believe that the core of the right of self-defense is the right of individual self-defense, and also that there is no clear dividing line between individual and collective self-defense, and that no distinction should be made between the two. However, they must be exercised with restraint. I cannot understand the reasoning of those who see a difference between "sending troops overseas" and "actions unified with the use of armed force."

>> The United Nations Charter, in Article 51, recognizes member states' rights of individual and collective self-defense; at the same time, the Charter lays down a framework for collective security centered on the United Nations. The difference between the two must be clearly understood.

>> I think that we should reexamine the question of whether allowing the United States to station forces in Japan can be said not to amount to an exercise of the right of collective self-defense.


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Since the end of the Cold War, we have entered an era in which the Third World has an increasingly great voice; and in this situation it is important to achieve peaceful coexistence between different civilizations. Japan is a nation that has proclaimed ideals supportive of this coexistence as principles of its Constitution.

>> In the UN Charter, the outlawry of war was affirmed as a result of reflection on two world wars, and provision was made on that basis for the right of self-defense. The Constitution further stipulates that Japan shall not maintain war potential, thereby taking the principle embodied in the UN Charter a step further.

>> The conditions for realizing the ideals of the UN Charter and the Constitution remained unfulfilled during the postwar era of U.S.-Soviet rivalry and instability in Asia, but I believe that in the twenty-first century we should think in terms of putting the Peace Constitution into practice through a multilayered, pluralistic approach based primarily on the ideals of the Constitution and the UN Charter.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> I would like to hear Mr. Yamaguchi's view of what approach the Japanese Communist Party would take to security in the event that it came to power.

> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Basically, we believe that we should maintain Article 9 and pursue neutrality and self-defense.

>> We consider that Article 9 provides for self-defense in the sense of protecting the nation, but that this does not include the possession of war potential or military forces. It is our view that, in terms of the Constitution, the Self-Defense Forces are unconstitutional, but that the existence of the Self-Defense Forces is a question of a different order; it is a question to be considered in reaching a policy agreement in the event that we participated in a government, and one that also depends on the views of the public. In any case, we would not strengthen the Self-Defense Forces along the lines that the present government is considering.


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> Consistency is essential in diplomatic policy, and I think that any change therein needs to be carefully timed.

>> In discussing the issue of revising Article 9, and in particular the question of the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, a number of issues need to be resolved. These include: the relationship between the stationing of U.S. forces in Japan and the right of collective self-defense; the compatibility of the concepts "emergency situations in areas surrounding Japan" and "armed attack"; and review of the government interpretation of Article 9, which takes "unity with the use of armed force" as a criterion.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> We should never carry out actions that fall under (a) "sending troops overseas and using armed force," but with regard to the contents of (b) "actions that are unified with the use of armed force," I think that certain aspects of this are unavoidable when one considers the relationship of the United States and Japan as allies. I would like to ask Mr. Nakamura his views on this point.


> NAKAMURA Tetsuji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> We should distinguish between questions of constitutional interpretation, which concern the scope of action that is permitted in general, and questions of legislation and policy, which concern what concrete measures to take.

>> If one adopts the position that the Constitution permits the exercise of the right of self-defense, it is not appropriate to make a distinction between individual and collective rights of self-defense. Further, as a legislative or policy question, we should define limits in considering the exercise of the right of self-defense.


NAKAYAMA Taro (Liberal Democratic Party; Chairman of the Research Commission)

>> In the future, efforts to build a security framework in the Asian region will be needed. How that framework is linked to the rights of individual and collective self-defense is likely to be one of the important issues of this century.

>> It is important that we members of the Diet conduct debate on the Constitution with the public good in mind. I believe that the appropriate scale of military capacity, form of regional community, and relationship with the United Nations will all become clear in the course of such a debate.


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

>> During the Cold War, Japan's role was set forth in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and it was required to fulfill that role regardless of its own wishes. However, Article 9 was used as an excuse when Japan could not play a role that involved the use of armed force.

>> You advocate that Japan should form its own intentions as a state. In future, instead of relying on Article 9 alone to explain its position or the nature of Self-Defense Force operations, Japan should have its own worldview as a state and should explain its position to the world in terms of its worldview. The debate on the Constitution should be based on a worldview of this nature.