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

Thursday, June 6, 2002

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning Japan's role in the international society

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

Informant:

  • TAKUBO Tadae, Professor of the Faculty of General Policy Studies, Kyorin University

Members who put questions to Prof. TAKUBO


Main points of Prof. TAKUBO's statement

1. How should current international conditions be assessed?

>> Since shortly before the end of the Cold War, we have entered a unipolar age of U.S. predominance. This trend has become even more pronounced since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

>> The Bush Administration is pursuing a diplomatic stance which is backed up by power. This can be seen in the move toward the deployment of missile defense systems and its withdrawal from the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty.

2. What will happen to the new world order?

>> Major changes are occurring in U.S.-Russia relations. Not only has Russia stopped opposing missile defense systems but it is cooperating with the U.S. in anti-terrorism military actions. Furthermore, a NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council has now been established.

>> Two disparate developments are observable in U.S.-China relations. On one hand, the United States is focusing on China as an important market and has supported China's WTO membership and its hosting of the Olympics. On the other hand, in the area of national security, the United States has re-defined its relation with China from that of "strategic partner" to "strategic competitor."

>> In its relations with Taiwan, the United States has added greater clarity and transparency to its previous position of strategic ambiguity. Regarding North Korea, the United States has rejected the sunshine policy and has included North Korea in the "axis of evil." Finally, the United States has been developing closer ties with India and Pakistan in a bid to strengthen its position in the periphery of China.

3. What is expected of Japan?

>> Both a recent paper by U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick and the so-called "Armitage Report" contain expressions of U.S. expectations for Japan to play a larger role in security matters. Concurrently, we are seeing the development of even closer ties between Japan and the United States.

4. Path chosen by Japan

>> Japan has advanced along the path of the so-called "Yoshida doctrine" whereby it rejected the demand of Secretary of State Dulles for the rearmament of Japan and chose the path to becoming an economic power. Japan later committed itself to the "three Takeshita principles" (ODA, international cultural exchange, contribution to peace) as it took its place in the world as an economic power. Throughout this period, Japan has consistently refused to provide military aid and has centered its international assistance programs on economic cooperation.

>> However, these forms of international cooperation failed to gain international approval during the Gulf War.

>> Regarding the Self-Defense Forces and the right to self-defense, Japan has so far subscribed to interpretations which maintain a level of consistency between real needs and the wording of the Constitution. While Japan may reconcile itself to its status of a "handicapped nation" which cannot engage in military cooperation under the current Constitution, there are clear limits to how far it can go in emergency-response laws and counter-terrorism activities based solely on constitutional interpretations.

5. Conclusions

>> Japan should learn from Germany which has acted on rearmament, NATO membership and international military cooperation in response to changes in the international environment, and Japan should make a breakthrough to becoming a normal democratic nation.

>> Regarding Japan-U.S. security relations, Japan should gradually move towards taking an independent stance.


Main points of questions and comments to Prof. TAKUBO

KOMURA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The government's interpretation that the exercise of the right of collective self-defense is unacceptable because it exceeds the "limits of necessary minimum" is not a logically inescapable conclusion. I believe that we should take the position that the exercise of the right of collective self-defense is acceptable when it is within the "limits of necessary minimum." However, it is inappropriate to modify our traditional position by merely altering established interpretations. The right way of going about this would be to amend the Constitution following public discussion and to thus become a "regular" country which allows for the existence of the Self-Defense Forces and acknowledges the right to collective self-defense. What are your views on these matters?


YAMADA Toshimasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> You have stated that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is far too one-sided and that Japan's position in this Treaty should be re-examined. In light of the fact that U.S. interest in Japan is waning, would it not be unrealistic to re-consider this relation from the perspective of adopting an independent position?

>> The government seems to think that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty will provide a base for coping with Chinese hegemony. What are your views on future relations with China?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> We are faced with the following "two two-year limits:" (a) the term of the Research Commission on the Constitution will run out in two years; (b) emergency-response laws will be enacted within two years. In light of these facts, do you not think that the time has now come for making constitutional amendment, including the issue of Article 9, a straightforward issue in elections?

>> The concept of the right of collective self-defense must be clarified. Furthermore, even in cases where the exercise of collective self-defense is justified, I believe the option remains for the government to decide not to exercise this right. What is your view on this?


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> Which do you think is preferable for Japan: a unipolar world where the United States stands far above all others, or a bipolar world where another country exists that can counterbalance the United States?

>> If the world moves toward a bipolar structure in the future, I expect that China will be the second pole. What are your views on the future relations between the United States and China?

>> Given that the United States is using its military bases in Japan to maintain stability in Asia, I believe that changes are taking place in the position of U.S. bases in Japan. What are your views on this matter?


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> European nations and other allies of the United States are becoming increasingly critical of U.S. unilateralism as seen, for example, in the revision of its nuclear strategies. What are your views on this matter?

>> In your view, what role will the United Nations play in the new world order that you have referred to?

>> What is your view of regional security initiatives, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum?


KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> Do you not think that problems, such as the current clash between India and Pakistan, represent distortions which have resulted from the global strategies of the United States? I believe that the U.S. approach of prioritizing military matters has an aspect of generating new conflicts. What are your views on this matter? >> The difference between Japan and Germany, I think, is that Japan embarked on a war of aggression in an area of the world where no other countries of equivalent power existed. I believe that if Japan amends its Constitution and moves toward becoming a military power, even today, our neighbors will find this very threatening. What is your view on this matter? >> Regarding Japan's three non-nuclear principles, Japan is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which I believe we must strictly abide by. What is your view of the comments made by Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda in reference to reviewing the three non-nuclear principles?


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> Do you feel that Japan's relations with Taiwan should remain as they stand now?

>> I believe that the U.S. military bases in Okinawa will remain important for the United States for some time to come. However, under what conditions might the United States decide to reduce the scale of its military presence in Okinawa?

>> The transfer of power from the Chinese President Jiang Zemin to Vice President Hu Jintao is scheduled to take place as early as this fall. What are the changes that may occur as a result of this transfer of power?


KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The Diet is currently deliberating on the three emergency-response bills. From its perspective, how does the United States evaluate the proposed Bill to Respond to Armed Attacks?

>> In your book entitled "Atarashii nichibei domei" [The New Japan-U.S. Alliance], you have quoted a paper written by U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick and commented as follows: "New concepts are definitely needed in Japan-U.S. relations, particularly in the area of bilateral security relations." What kind of new concepts do you have in mind?

>> I believe the emergency-response bills must be enacted to prepare for a situation in which Japan's sovereignty is infringed upon. However, suppose the three emergency-response bills are not passed. How would the United States and our neighboring countries view Japan?


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

>> For the following reasons, Japan's security matters are becoming far more complex: (a) the risks involved in Japan's alliance with the United States which is now coming under various forms of attack; (b) the possibility that the U.S. may choose to protect itself by allying with China which is becoming its military threat; (c) the need to consider a wide range of factors, including humanitarian concerns and countermeasures to cyber-terrorism. In this highly complex environment, how should Japan view national security from the perspective of the Constitution?

>> I believe that U.S. military forces in Japan may become the target of terrorist attacks. In this context, I believe that Japan has failed to take into consideration the risks of allowing foreign military forces to be stationed on its soil. What is your view of amending the Constitution to prohibit the stationing of foreign military forces as has been done in the Philippines?

>> U.S. foreign policies are clearly moving in the direction indicated by Samuel Huntington. How should nations and peoples not mentioned in the Bible develop relations of trust with the United States in the future?


HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Japan is being pressed to choose between an independent stance on foreign relations and the imitation of U.S. positions. I believe that we should adopt the following dual approach: the pursuit of independent diplomatic policies in the area of "global governance," such as the environment, natural resources and nuclear non-proliferation, combined with the maintenance of the Japan-U.S. alliance in the realm of "power politics" as a means of restraining China. What is your view on this matter?

>> Under the three non-nuclear principles, Japan says that it will not use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it is understood that the United States will use nuclear weapons in the defense of Japan. The existence of non-nuclear principles does not allow us to avoid the problems of nuclear armament. What is your view on this matter?


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

KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> On the question of nuclear weapons, we must acknowledge the fact that Japan is the only country that has experienced nuclear bombing, that we have long carried the banner of the three non-nuclear principles, and that we have repeatedly submitted resolutions to the United Nations for the abolition of nuclear weapons so that the cruelty and inhumanity of nuclear weapons will never again be visited upon mankind.

>> However, I feel that the government has not worked hard enough to promote the cause of the global abolition of nuclear weapons. From the overall perspective of the Constitution, Japan must actively promote the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other related measures. Also, Japan must re-engage in a discussion of what it means to be world's only victim of nuclear bombing.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Japan is being pressed to decide between two options: to amend the Constitution and become a "normal country," or to remain a "special country" by restricting itself to responses that are allowable under the interpretations of the current framework of the Constitution. The choice must ultimately be made taking public opinion into consideration. My personal position, which may not be that of my party, is to pursue the first option by retaining Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution while amending Paragraph 2.

>> To render meaningful the three non-nuclear principles of "not possessing, not manufacturing and not allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan," a fourth principle must be added. This would be a principle for "disallowing possession" of nuclear weapons by countries that are intent on arming themselves with nuclear weapons, and would entail efforts on the part of Japan to prevent nations from arming themselves with nuclear weapons. As for the principle of "not allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan," I believe there is ample room for re-examining this principle from the perspective of consistency with reality.

>> I believe that to prepare ourselves for a national emergency, we should enact the emergency-response bills. I would like to ask Mr. Kaneko if he believes we should respond with nonviolent resistance in the case of a national emergency.


> KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> If we compare the number of lives that will be lost in a military response to the number of lives that will be lost through nonviolent resistance, clearly the former will be larger. Another point to remember is that very large numbers of ordinary citizens lose their lives in contemporary warfare. In light of these facts, I believe that Japan should opt for nonviolent resistance in case of a national emergency. Furthermore, I am certain that the international society will not allow such a situation to continue for long.


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> The number of lives lost in a national emergency is not the issue. The true question is how we should protect the lives, rights and freedom of the people.


NAKAYAMA Taro (Chairman of the Research Commission)

>> It is extremely significant that we have engaged in discussions of Japan's national security and the future of our nation in light of the ongoing deliberations on the three emergency-response bills and the changing international environment.