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

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning Japan's role in international society.

After a statement was heard from Professor IWAMA Yoko concerning the above matters, questions were put to her; and this was followed by discussion among the members.

Informant

  • IWAMA Yoko, Associate Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies

Members who put questions to Prof. IWAMA

Main points of Prof. IWAMA's statement

Introduction

>> I will present my views regarding Germany's post-war Basic Law and security arrangements from the perspectives of diplomatic history and international politics.

 >> The distinctive characteristics of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Constitution) include the facts that it has been revised 51 times and that the German Federal Constitutional Court has issued numerous bold rulings concerning its contents.

1. Original Stipulations of West Germany's Basic Law

>> Following World War II, West Germany had no military under the terms of the disarmament agreement. When the Basic Law was promulgated, it stipulated a ban on preparing for wars of aggression; citizens' rights of conscientious objection to rendering war service as armed combatants; and the Federation's right to join mutual collective security systems for the maintenance of peace.

2. The Rearmament of West Germany

>> Following the outbreak of the Korean War, the rearmament of West Germany was considered in the context of European unification, and in 1954 the Basic Law was revised to give the legislature (the Bundestag lower house and the Bundesrat upper house) the right to prepare military forces. Following West Germany's negotiations to join NATO and the WEU, the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1954, and volunteer Federal Armed Forces were created in 1955.

>> In 1956, the Basic Law was revised, through legislative cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties, to permit the Federation to formally reestablish armed forces. This revision included stipulations to ensure civilian control over the armed forces, such as checks by the legislature and balances between the Bundesrat upper house and the Länder states.

>> In 1957, the Basic Law was revised to stipulate military service conscription, and these stipulations are still in force but still being debated. The Constitutional Court has ruled that obligatory military service is constitutional even in the post Cold War era.

3. Internal Emergency Legislation of 1968

>> Legislation to address states of emergency was an issue of major concern for the restoration of sovereignty. In 1968, the Basic Law was fundamentally revised via an amendment, supported by the broad Social Democratic Party and conservative parties coalition government, to cover virtually all conceivable internal emergencies. With this revision, the Basic Law came to address defense, emergency and alliance situations with specific definitions, requirements for decision-making, and effects.

4. Conditions of the West German Armed Forces under the Cold War

>> During the Cold War, the West German federal armed forces were integrated with NATO, and their mobility and chain of command were strictly limited. Moreover, the various stipulations presumed that activities by the federal armed forces would be limited to within NATO territory. 

>> Meanwhile, the dispatch of federal armed forces' personnel for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief was addressed from an entirely separate perspective, and armed forces personnel have been dispatched for these purposes almost every year since 1960.

5. Changes in West Germany's National Security Policies and Constitutional Interpretations since the End of the Cold War

>> After the end of the Cold War, overseas activities by the federal armed forces became necessary for Germany to participate in the Persian Gulf War, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and the Somali civil war under United Nations and NATO command, to fulfill its duties as a member of the international community and as a member of the NATO alliance. Thus, the dispatch of armed forces personnel outside of NATO territory became a constitutional issue.

>> In July 1994, in an interpretation of Article 24(2) of the Basic Law, the Constitutional Court ruled that federal armed forces personnel may be dispatched not only to participate in United Nations collective security activities, but also to participate in NATO and other alliance activities with the approval of the legislature. Following this ruling, the overseas activities of the federal armed forces have been expanded, and the federal armed forces at present have 9,000-10,000 personnel stationed overseas on a regular basis. 

>> The security environment shifted after the end of the Cold War as it became difficult to imagine any invasion of German territory, and the armed forces policy is now being reformed toward fulfilling new duties of crisis management and conflict prevention outside of NATO territory.

Main points of questions and comments to Prof. IWAMA

YAMAGUCHI Taimei (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The legal system must be placed on a solid foundation so that Japan can respond appropriately to threatening international conditions and support world peace. How should we view Japan's international cooperation in the military field given the situation whereby Japan's military activities are restricted by Article 9 while the nation also has duties to contribute to the peace and security of the international community?

>> I believe that while we should still respect the spirit of the present Constitution, we have no choice but to revise the Constitution so that Japan can fulfill its obligations for international cooperation in the military field.  What is your opinion?

>> Germany's Basic Law stipulates provisions for defense-related states of emergency and other overseas emergency situations, and I would like to ask Prof. IWAMA to compare these with the provisions under the three Japanese emergency-response bills, especially the stipulations concerning restrictions on human rights, control over local and other government bodies, and the authority of the legislative branch.
 

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

>> What type of constitutional revisions do you feel are presently desirable for Japan?

>> The greatest issues for emergency legislation are the centralization of authority and the restriction of human rights. Do you feel that Japan should adopt stipulations similar to those under Germany's internal emergency legislation, or that Japan should devise its own system?

>> The post-war paths of Japan and Germany have differed greatly in terms of reflection on past wars of aggression and actions taken based upon this. How should Japan gain international understanding that we have no intention of invading other countries?

>> What do you think about the idea of placing the Self-Defense Forces under United Nations'command?
 

AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Regarding the issue of war responsibility in post-war times, what do you think about the opinion that while Germany has skillfully attributed its war responsibility entirely to the Nazi Party, Japan has unskillfully left it vague as to where responsibility lies?

>> In discussing the U.S. anti-terrorism military activities, you have written that Germany promptly stated that it was prepared to provide all possible support, including support for military activities, and emphasized that this should be viewed in the context of Germany's self-image as a great power. Could you explain this in greater detail?

>> Do you believe that cases whereby Germany will adopt different positions from the U.S. and its other allies will now increase?

>> Article 9 reflects the prevailing conditions when the Constitution was enacted, and has played a major role to date. However, I am in nearly complete agreement with your position on Article 9, that the Constitution should be revised in accordance with the changing times. I also agree that wide-ranging debates across party lines regarding the role of the state are needed to discuss the system of emergency-response bills, but I am pessimistic about the present conditions. What is your opinion regarding this?
 

FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> What do you feel about the distinction between Article 9, which prohibits wars of aggression, and the overseas dispatch of Self-Defense Forces personnel, which is permitted by the Constitution?

>> What sort of emergency legislation do you think Japan should adopt?

>> How do you think Germany's federal armed forces will change in the future?

>> How would you describe a "civilian-type army"? How is military conscription viewed in Germany?
 

YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The rearmament of Germany was an integral part of its joining NATO, and at that time there must have been various problems concerning Germany as a single nation under the framework of the Basic Law and its relations with the international community. How did Germany respond to those concerns at that time?

>> Germany made great efforts to provide war reparations payments over many years, and you have stated that the different approaches to war reparations in Germany and Japan reflect differences in national characters. Do you not agree that some of these differences result from the Basic Law's clear stance on political responsibility to address this issue? And did the German debate on war responsibility arise in conjunction with the debates on revising the Basic Law?

>> Even before the initiation of military conscription, Article 4 of the Basic Law included provisions for conscientious objection to military service. I want to ask about the background and purport of these provisions, and about how the nuances of these provisions changed with the actual introduction of military conscription.

>> The Constitution of Japan expressly stipulates the renunciation of war and the use of military force, while Germany's Constitution does not include any such explicit statements. What is your opinion about this?
 

KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> When military conflicts break out, they are normally discussed in the context of the United Nations, but the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo took place without any U.N. resolution. Does this not pose a problem for the maintenance of international order? Also, could you tell us what type of discussions took place within Germany at that time regarding this issue?

>> In the recent election in Germany, the Social Democratic Party emerged victorious on a stance of opposing the invasion of Iraq that the U.S. was preparing to carry out. What were the reasons given for opposing U.S. policy, and how did the German public accept this?

>> The Federal Government of Germany has provided war reparations payments to individuals, while Japan has refused to provide any reparations whatsoever to individuals. What do you think about this?
 

INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> The present Constitution does not make any explicit statements regarding crisis management or the Self-Defense Forces, or include any clear provisions providing a legal basis for exercising the right of self-defense, but it does prevent Japan from exercising the right of collective self-defense. I feel that Article 9 must be revised because it is so remarkably divergent from the current, generally accepted social standards. What is your opinion regarding this?

>> In Japan, the general interpretation is that the Constitution takes precedence over international treaties, but if international treaties take precedence over the Constitution, then treaties could be directly applied as domestic laws without enacting any particular legislation. What is your opinion regarding this issue?

>> This February, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued a ruling regarding the constitutionality of military conscription, which had been explicitly addressed by the Basic Law. Could you explain this case?
 

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> What types of procedures are followed for constitutional revision in Germany? Is a national referendum required in Germany for constitutional revision as it is in Japan?

>> Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the German government immediately announced that it would cooperate with the U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan. Recently, however, the German government has taken a different stance toward the Iraq issue. Could you explain the background to these different policies?

>> Germany's nonmilitary contributions to the international community are being emphasized, and I feel that Japan should make nonmilitary contributions from the standpoint of "human security." In this case, what points should Japan utilize from the German experience as a useful reference?
 

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

>> It is said that during and after the Cold War, Germany's participation in military activities within NATO territory, and more recently its dispatch of military forces outside of NATO territory, have been based on Article 24(2) of the Basic Law (regarding German entry into mutual collective security systems). However, I think that it is unreasonable to explain the cases of Germany's participation in multi-national armies centered on the U.S. military based solely on participation in mutual collective security systems. Would you explain the theory in such cases in Germany?

>> In the discussions regarding the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law and the Law concerning Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, the debate has exclusively focused on the exercise of military force based on a view of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty as a collective security arrangement. I think these discussions have reached their limits, and that the time has come for Japan to directly debate the core issue of the right to collective self-defense and collective security. What is your opinion?

>> How has Germany successfully managed to revise the Basic Law so many times?
 

HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Germany has firmly established its national security by time and again revising the Basic Law through unified initiatives by ruling and opposition parties. How was consensus among the politicians and citizens formed for these revisions? I suppose that this must have required strong leadership by the politicians. Could you explain this?

>> You explained that the rulings of the Constitutional Court played a large role in the decision to dispatch German armed forces to the former Yugoslavia. Was there any criticism that the Constitutional Court has no democratic legitimacy to play such a large role?

>> Could you explain possible methodologies for a future Asian security framework ?
 


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

AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> As Prof. IWAMA stated, the three emergency-response bills must be enacted with political support transcending party lines. The Social Democratic Party has stated that because the loss of life incurred from a military response would be greater than the loss of life incurred from nonviolent resistance, Japan should opt for nonviolent resistance in the case of a national emergency. What is the position of the Japanese Communist Party concerning the enactment of emergency-response bills? I understand that the Japanese Communist Party in September 2000 passed a policy resolution approving the use of Self-Defense Forces during emergencies. Does this mean that the Japanese Communist Party agrees on the necessity of enacting the emergency-response legislation?
 

>YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The three emergency-response bills concern the use of military force overseas, and therefore the Japanese Communist Party is opposed to this legislation. The Preamble to the Constitution explicitly stipulates a stance of positive pacifism striving for the preservation of peace, and the Japanese Communist Party believes that this stance must be fundamentally maintained into the future. The September 2000 policy resolution means that, assuming the Japanese Communist Party joins the government and takes on the unconstitutional Self-Defense Forces as a "negative legacy" from former administrations, the Self-Defense Forces, as an existing organization, could be used for situations that cannot be addressed by police forces. This policy resolution is definitely not linked to the use of the Self-Defense Forces under the three emergency-response bills.

> AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Should we understand your statement to mean that the Japanese Communist Party believes that there is no need to enact emergency-response legislation?

> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> In Japan, the phrase "emergency-response legislation" has become a clich?. In the first place, "emergencies" should be handled by the Maritime Safety Agency and the police. Japan should be working to secure its own peace and security through peaceful efforts to resolve the problems posed by military alliances, nuclear weapons, and factors contributing to instability in East Asia, and in this sense the emergency-response legislation being proposed by the government is unnecessary.

> AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Are you saying that in the event of a national emergency, the Japanese Communist Party would not take the position of insisting on a completely unarmed response and offering no resistance to the "emergency" threat?

> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> No. The Japanese Communist Party would adamantly oppose any such "emergency" threat using all means aside from those military means that are prohibited by Article 9.
 

KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> We should pay heed to the great differences in the conditions in Japan and Germany after the World War II.

>> Because Japan was clearly not vulnerable to invasion by other countries, I fear that discussions on emergency-response legislation are being advanced in the context of the necessity of responding to overseas conflicts. There is a need to deepen the national debate on whether Japan has any vulnerability to a foreign invasion, and whether eliminating destabilizing factors via peace diplomacy is impossible; but the discussions concerning the three emergency-response bills do not address these underlying issues and are remote from the present realities of international society.
 

NAKAYAMA Taro (Chairman of the Commission)

>> It is important to continue diplomatic efforts to maintain peace in constructing a security framework for Northeast Asia. At the same time, protecting the lives and property of citizens is a government's most important duty, and we must consider improving the law to achieve these purposes.

>> Germany is providing personnel resources and funds to build up peace in other nations. But in Japan, we should first emphasize securing peace and security for our own nation and our own citizens.
 

SENGOKU Yoshito (Deputy Chairman of the Commission)

>> Prof. IWAMA's statement has confirmed my understanding that Germany's rearmament took place amid a national consensus toward forming an "open military" reflecting introspection over the nation's activities during World War II.

>> Germany's emergency legislation was enacted reflecting the possibility of a military invasion that could threaten its citizens' lives and property, and the role of military forces subsequently shifted from defending the national territory toward conflict prevention and crisis management. Considering this, the debate regarding Japan's emergency-response legislation should be recognized as a constitutional problem and also be advanced based on a consensus among Japanese citizens.
 

SHIMOJI Mikio (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Citizens' understanding is an essential prerequisite for enacting the emergency-response bills, and so the proposals must be presented to the citizenry in an easily understandable manner.

>> Accordingly, we need to examine the relationship between the emergency-response legislation and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Especially since the Status of Forces Agreement based on the Security Treaty lacks equality, it would be difficult to gain citizens' understanding for enacting the emergency-response legislation before revising the Status of Forces Agreement.
 

YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The German experience, beginning with more than 50 revisions to the Basic Law, should be viewed in terms of the historical process of the unification of a divided state.

>> When examining the security of Northeast Asia, it will be important to make use of the Constitution toward resolving the many outstanding issues remaining from Japan's war of aggression.
 

AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> When I examined Germany's emergency legislation as a member of the House's Special Committee on Responses to Armed Attacks investigative mission this summer, I was deeply impressed by comments made by one German representative at one of the organs we visited, who stated that in preparing its own emergency-response legislation Japan should not only consider its response to conflicts among states but also its response to terrorism and other conflicts not among states.