Meeting Agenda
1.Resignation of directors and appointment of new directors
Two directors were appointed to fill vacancies:
HIRABAYASHI Kozo, due to the resignation of NISHIDA Mamoru from the Commission; both are members of the Liberal Democratic Party.
FURUKAWA Motohisa, due to the resignation as a director of NAKAGAWA Masaharu;
both are members of the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents.
2.Matters relating to the establishment of Subcommittees
It was decided, after discussion, to establish a Subcommittee on Ideal
Constitution as Supreme Law; a Subcommittee on Security and International
Cooperation; a Subcommittee on Guarantee of Fundamental Human Rights; and
a Subcommittee on Ideal Government and Organizations.
3.Matters relating to requests for attendance by informants
It was decided, after discussion, to request the attendance of informants
in the Subcommittees.
4.Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
A free discussion was held on the current international situation and international cooperation, with particular reference to the issues of Iraq and North Korea. Chairman NAKAYAMA commented on the significance of placing the Iraq and North Korean issues, in particular, on the agenda for free discussion.
Main points of comments by members of the Commission (in order of presentation)
Initial round of comments by representatives of each party
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Japan lacks an international sense, that is, the ability to perceive international conflicts as matters in which we ourselves are directly and actively concerned. In future, if we are to make an international contribution that is not based on a sense of detachment, we should consolidate our thinking on the right of collective self-defense.
>> With regard to the Iraq question, we should distinguish between the legal issues and issues of diplomatic strategy. Regarding the legal issues, we should not go on merely treating symptoms as they arise, but should revise the Self-Defense Forces Law in order to recognize peacekeeping operations and other overseas activities as part of the regular duties of the Self-Defense Forces.
>> The abductions by North Korea are a state crime that infringes Japanese sovereignty and a grave violation of human rights. In my personal opinion, we should seek the return of all the abductees, the restoration of the status quo, and reparations.
>> Japan does not possess the capacity to intercept North Korean missiles, and we cannot secure our own safety while we maintain the existing Constitution and our existing view of security. We should not normalize diplomatic relations nor provide economic cooperation as long as we are threatened by North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles, and as long as the abduction issue remains unresolved.
>> Protecting our national sovereignty is a precondition of protecting the human rights of the people against infringement from beyond our borders. Moreover, we cannot make a true international contribution without first establishing our own national security. In view of these concerns, we should take measures including revision of the Constitution and the Self-Defense Forces Law.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I will base my comments on the security policy adopted by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in 1999.
>> The United States has declared its readiness to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq, but the international impact of a preemptive attack must be considered in the light of international law and the three conditions which, according to the Japanese government's opinion, limit the exercise of the right of individual self-defense. Japan must stand firm against terrorism, but having taken a firm stance it should proceed with caution in regard to an attack on Iraq and should emphasize the necessity for a UN resolution.
>> In its security policy, the DPJ addresses the question of whether Japan should participate in multilateral forces based on a UN resolution where this entails the exercise of armed force. We disagree with the argument that participation does not invoke "a sovereign right of the nation," because each participating country retains command over its troops and individual countries are left free to make their own decision on participation, and we therefore consider that it is not permissible under Article 9. We do believe, however, that Japan should play an active part in rear-echelon support for international efforts to maintain peace and order and in UN peacekeeping operations.
>> North Korea's announced withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), its reactivation of its nuclear facilities, and its nuclear missiles all pose a threat to Japan. On January 24, in response to a question by Mr. SUEMATSU, the House of Representatives Budget Committee debated at what point the right of individual self-defense can be exercised.
>> If we are to recognize the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, we should not take the easy route of constitutional interpretation, but should revise the Constitution.
>> When asked his views on a preemptive attack, Prime Minister KOIZUMI stated that he would reserve judgment as it is a hypothetical question. However, discussions of security policy are necessarily based on hypotheses, and I believe that this Commission should set out in an organized way the constitutional questions that arise in the security debate.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> Yesterday, New Komeito met with the British Ambassador to Japan to discuss the Iraq question. The Ambassador expressed the view that, while it was desirable that an attack on Iraq be authorized by a UN resolution, time was running out, and if a resolution were impossible, each country could only act on its own responsibility. In reply, many of our members voiced the opinion that, rather than subscribing to the policies of the United States, Britain should act as a brake by providing sound advice.
>> New Komeito takes the position that, within Japan's own territory, it is possible to use force based on the right of self-defense, but that the use of armed force in the territory of another nation is not permitted. We believe that we should maintain this position firmly in the future.
>> I recognize that legislation on security issues has been improved up to a point since the Gulf War, with the passage of the Law concerning Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, the Law concerning Ship Inspection Activities, and the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, among others, but I believe that we should also put in place a new set of emergency-response laws.
>> From the viewpoint of contributing to international peace, cooperation with multilateral forces is an issue that remains to be addressed. I welcome the recommendation issued by the Advisory Group on International Cooperation for Peace (chaired by Mr. AKASHI Yasushi) on December 18 of last year, that study be opened on the creation of a general legal framework for cooperation with multilateral forces dispatched under UN resolutions. In addition the government holds that the use of weapons to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent the discharge of peacekeeping duties (known as "B-type weapons use" in Japan) presents a problem in relation to Article 9, but the Advisory Group recommended making such weapons use possible, and I believe that study of this question is an urgent task.
TAKEYAMA Yuriko (Liberal Party)
>> The state is responsible for protecting the lives, property, and freedom of the people, and we should make provision in the Constitution for emergency situations, including acts of terrorism and natural disasters. The Liberal Party has submitted a bill based on our position that a Basic Security Law should be enacted in order to compensate for the lack of constitutional provisions concerning emergencies, to establish principles of security and self-defensive action, and to declare these principles both at home and abroad.
>> The Liberal Party advocates the following three points: [1] Based on the doctrines of the Japanese Constitution, only when there is an imminent and illegitimate act of aggression against the nation can Japan use force to check and counter such act; in no other case will force or the threat of force be exercised in the name of the right to self-defense, whether individual or collective. [2] Japan will continue to strongly support the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and to further enhance its credibility as vital to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region, while maintaining the efficiency of its own defense capabilities. [3] Japan will honor all UN resolutions concerning peace operations and actively participate in UN peacekeeping operations.
>> With regard to Iraq, Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of armed force, and efforts should be made to verify the facts through continuing inspections. Also, rear-echelon support of the kind that the Self-Defense Forces provided during the U.S. offensive in Afghanistan after September 11 is construed to be an exercise of the right of collective self-defense, and if the government wishes to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces it should first change its constitutional interpretation with regard to the exercise of that right. Furthermore, Japan should not cooperate in an attack on Iraq unless there is a resolution authorizing the use of force.
>> North Korea's announced withdrawal from the NPT is an unacceptable violation of international rules. I believe that Japan should seek a UN resolution calling on Pyongyang to retract its declaration, abandon its nuclear development program, and admit nuclear inspectors, and that at the same time we should prepare for all contingencies in terms of security.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> In the current session of the Diet, the Commission has established four subcommittees, but their research topics and other matters have been decided with a view to the submission of a final report, and it is doubtful whether they will allow a many-sided and diversified investigation into how the Constitution is actually operating.
>> With regard to the issue of Iraq, the use of armed force by the United States should not be recognized; instead, we should make it a principle to work for a peaceful resolution by nonmilitary means such as continued inspections and economic sanctions.
>> The Aegis destroyer that Japan has sent to the Indian Ocean should be immediately withdrawn, as its deployment destroys the favorable image that the nations of the Middle East and neighboring regions have of Japan and, moreover, is a violation of the Peace Constitution.
>> While there are problems in the NPT itself, including its preferential treatment of the nuclear powers, North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty is contrary to its pledge in the Pyongyang Declaration to comply with international agreements. As the only nation to have experienced nuclear attack, Japan should call on North Korea to retract its withdrawal and abandon its nuclear development program.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> The United Nations should play the central role in resolving the Iraq question. However, Japan should not merely leave it to the United Nations to solve the problem, but, in keeping with the spirit of the Preamble and Article 9 of the Constitution, should exert its influence as a member nation to avoid military action.
>> In the belief that Japan should play a role consistent with its having experienced nuclear attack, the Social Democratic Party opposes the possession of nuclear weapons and calls for their elimination. Further, North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT is a dangerous action, and we are resolved to do everything in our power to realize a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
>> With regard to the possession of nuclear weapons, I believe that the inhumane nature of these weapons is sufficient grounds to establish that their possession is unconstitutional, and there is thus no need to look to interpretation of Article 9 for justification.
>> Japan should take a rigorous stance on nuclear policy, instead of following the lead of the United States. I believe also that we should codify the three nonnuclear principles in legislative form.
INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)
>> As premises for the discussion of Japan's role in the international community, we need to take into account: (a) the fact that the Constitution was enacted without adequate debate, based on the Occupation policy of disarming Japan and on a Japanese policy that tended away from active involvement in international relations; (b) the fact that, unlike the situation immediately after its defeat in World War II, Japan is now in a position where it should assume responsibilities and a role commensurate with its status in the international community.
>> Based on those premises, and taking the viewpoint of protecting our national interest, this Commission should study the proper response to issues such as the Iraq problem, North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, and the international spread of terrorism, while including in our scope the question of improving institutional provisions.
>> In light of the increasingly volatile international situation, there is a need to reconsider the government's interpretation of the Constitution, especially Article 9, to enable us to respond flexibly to change. At the same time, we need to ensure that we have a living Constitution that is truly Japan's own, allowing also for the possibility of constitutional revision.
Comments after the first round - On the Iraq question and related issues -
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The situation today is very different from the circumstances at the time when the Constitution was enacted, and these changes mean that Japan today cannot ensure its security on its own. Thus, Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi made an excellent point when he said that we should not have "a sense of detachment" with regard to our international contribution at times of international conflict.
>> I believe that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is the main factor that has kept this country at peace for more than fifty years since World War II. What are the views of the members from the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party in this regard? Also, even though pacifist principles are set forth in the constitutions of some 130 nations, we still see incessant conflicts in the world today, and in light of this reality I think it is difficult to ensure national security and independence by relying solely on the ideals of the Preamble and Article 9. What are your views on this?
>> How do the representatives of the Japanese Communist Party think that we should act in the event that the United States' independent investigations prove that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction?
>> What are the views of the representatives of the Social Democratic Party on the abduction issue?
> HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I believe that it was the pacifist principles set forth in the Preamble and Article 9, together with the people's efforts and aspirations for peace, that made the greatest contribution to the more than fifty years of peace since World War II.
>> There is a conflict between the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Constitution, as is clear when one considers the use that was made of U.S. military bases in Japan during the Vietnam War.
>> With regard to Iraq, efforts toward a peaceful solution based on a UN resolution are necessary. The United States should present all of its evidence to the United Nations for discussion. I think that an approach predicated on the use of force is dangerous.
> KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> I believe that the reason why Japan has not been drawn into a war in the more than fifty years since World War II lies in the pacifist principles of the Constitution.
>> Whereas the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty takes as its premise that war will occur, the Preamble and Article 9 made a pioneering commitment to efforts to prevent war from occurring, in the principle of conflict resolution.
>> With regard to the issue of the North Korean abductions, the Social Democratic Party recognizes these as criminal acts and is calling for a full inquiry into the truth. We believe that human rights should be protected.
SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Because the existing Constitution was enacted with a view to ensuring that Japan would not disturb the peace of the international community, as that community becomes increasingly unstable in the post-Cold War era, the existing Constitution offers no substantive provisions as to how Japan can make autonomous efforts to help build and maintain international peace. I believe that this is why we have been unable to respond adequately in terms of peacekeeping operations, overseas development assistance, and so on.
>> The presence of U.S. military bases in Japan, despite the fact that this nation's military activities are restricted by Article 9, exposes us to the risk of attack by other nations or nonstate actors. Because the existing Constitution does not stipulate how Japan would respond to an attack, we should enact a Basic Security Law setting forth a basic response to threats.
>> With regard to issues affecting the international community as a whole, such as the refugee problem, we should play an independent role and place importance on the spirit of "helping one another." Also, explicit provision should be made in the Constitution for this spirit of "helping one another."
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> Both the Constitution and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty have helped preserve peace in postwar Japan; there is no contradiction between them.
>> With regard to taking part in peacekeeping operations, I believe that the wide-ranging peace cooperation activities that have come to be considered necessary in actual practice are consistent with the spirit of the Preamble and Article 9. The Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party opposed the enactment of the International Peace Cooperation Law, but what do their representatives think about this question today?
> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The United States' approach to the Iraq question, which is predicated on military attack, is at odds with the United Nations' orientation toward conflict resolution, and hence it is only natural that some countries have declared their opposition to an American military strike.
>> There is a conflict between the Constitution and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, as exemplified by the problem of U.S. military bases.
>> With regard to peacekeeping operations, while we do not deny the value of such operations per se, there is a need to verify whether they are actually being conducted in the spirit of the UN Charter. In any case, we are opposed to Japan taking part militarily in peacekeeping operations.
> KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> We should abrogate the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty because it conflicts with the Constitution, as shown by the fact that U.S. military bases in Japan have been utilized when the United States has used armed force.
>> With regard to peacekeeping operations, while we do not deny the value of the operations themselves, in light of the fact that the Preamble and Article 9 limit Japan's participation to nonmilitary sectors, we oppose sending the Self-Defense Forces overseas under the International Peace Cooperation Law and expanding the use of weapons, which would increase the risk of becoming involved in conflicts, and we believe that an organization separate from the Self-Defense Forces should be created to participate in peacekeeping operations.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should think concretely about the nature of our participation in peacekeeping operations with a view to more active cooperation.
>> Do the representatives of the Japanese Communist Party disagree with authorizing sanctions against Iraq even if it is proved to be developing weapons of mass destruction?
> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The United Nations should determine whether or not Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction and should decide the measures to be taken accordingly. Further, if it is proved to be a fact, that should not automatically authorize the use of force; we should think first about making Iraq give up its weapons of mass destruction.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I believe that the proposed U.S. military attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq for the stated purpose of carrying out a preemptive strike and overthrowing the Hussein regime has no basis in international law. When such issues of international law are taken into account, how do the members of the Commission think the Iraq question should be handled?
>> Even if it is a fact that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, the judgments and decisions concerned should be made by the United Nations. If the United Nations finds that Iraq is in violation and decides on sanctions, I believe that Japan should cooperate according to its ability, even if the sanctions involve the use of force.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The United States has declared its readiness to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq, but given that the UN Charter sets forth limited conditions for invoking the right of self-defense, do the ruling parties think that a preemptive attack would be right or wrong? If a preemptive attack is allowed, will it not lead to a breakdown of the present order in which international conflicts are resolved by the United Nations, and to the evisceration of the rule of law in the international community?
>> Mr. HARUNA claims that peace in Japan has been maintained through the Peace Constitution, but what is the logic underlying this statement?
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> To date, the United States has taken various preliminary steps including criticizing Iraq in the State of the Union Address in January 2002 and calling on Baghdad to submit to inspections to determine whether it is developing weapons of mass destruction. Since the United States is proceeding in this measured way, I do not believe that it will carry out a preemptive strike.
>> The government must explain more clearly to the public why Japan is willing to cooperate with the United States.
In response to Mr. SHIMA's question on the logic of the statement that peace has been maintained by the Peace Constitution:
> HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Japan has stayed at peace because Article 9 and the Preamble do not merely declare ideals; instead, they have served as a brake on attempts to make Japan a military superpower, and as a real source of empowerment for the peace movement and efforts to prevent participation in war. Japan should remain thoroughly committed to peace diplomacy in the future as well.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In an open letter to the Security Council, Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. Attorney General, has stated his view that Iraq cannot be considered a threat to peace since its military facilities were largely destroyed in the Gulf War and it has not been conclusively proved to possess weapons of mass destruction, that there is therefore no justification for an armed attack, and that both the United Nations and the United States should pursue peace. I agree with this view. Further, I believe that Security Council Resolution 1441 lacks sufficient basis in the present case, as there has been no invasion or similar action.
KONNO Azuma (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the event of an attack on Iraq, the Constitution would not allow Japan to provide cooperation, even in the form of rear-echelon support. The real problem for Japan is that, during the ongoing inspection process in Iraq, we lack the ability to gather intelligence in order to assess the risks and make other necessary judgments.
KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)
>> When I visited Pakistan, in talking with members of the public I learned that any cooperation with an armed attack-even rear-echelon support-would be seen as military action. If we are to actively uphold pacifist principles, Japan should become a "conscientious objector nation."
>> I would like to ask Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi why he thinks Japan should cooperate with the United States. Also, why is he convinced that the United States will not carry out a preemptive attack on Iraq?
> NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The United States has taken various preliminary steps such as calling on Iraq to admit inspectors, and it is placing importance on consultation with the United Nations and with its allies. For these reasons, I do not believe that it will carry out a preemptive strike.
>> Japan should study what it can do to resolve the Iraq question, rather than viewing the problem as irrelevant to itself.
SUGIURA Seiken (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I would like to ask Mr. SHIMA of the Democratic Party of Japan what action he thinks Japan should take in the event that the Security Council adopts a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, as it did in the Gulf War.
> SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I am not in a position to sum up the policy of the Democratic Party of Japan, but I believe that to authorize an attack on Iraq, at the least, a UN resolution is required. If such a resolution is adopted, I believe that, in light of Article 9, Japan's cooperation with an attack on Iraq should be confined to areas that do not involve the use of force.
SUEMATSU Yoshinori (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> There appears to be a general consensus that, in the event of a Security Council resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq, Japan should cooperate within limits that do not involve the use of force.
>> Whether the use of force to combat terrorism amounts to a use
of force "as a means of settling international disputes," which
is prohibited by Article 9, is a question that requires study, as does
the question of what Japan can do within the limits of the right of self-defense
in the event of a North Korean missile attack.
- On the North Korean question and related issues -
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While the Iraq question is certainly important, North Korea poses a more serious problem for Japan.
>> Today, the nation may face a crisis at any moment, from terrorism or international conflict. It is therefore necessary to examine in detail the three requirements for exercise of the right of self-defense, including such questions as at what point it should be deemed that an armed attack has occurred. On the basis of such an examination, it is the duty of Diet members, who are responsible for peace and security, to think about how to gather information and respond to a situation in which the nation faces a crisis, and then to let the public know their conclusions.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> The government apparently thinks that even the possession of nuclear weapons would be constitutional as long as they were restricted to the minimum necessary for self-defense, but in light of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons, I believe that all nations should be banned from possessing them. I would like to ask Mr. AKAMATSU of New Komeito his views on the possession of nuclear weapons.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> New Komeito not only maintains that Japan should firmly uphold the principles of neither possessing nor manufacturing nuclear weapons, based on the three nonnuclear principles, but it has also adopted a clear stance of actively appealing to all countries to bring about the elimination of nuclear weapons by not allowing their possession, manufacture, or introduction to their territory.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The North Korean nuclear program is a problem that Japan shares with other members of the international community. The issue of abductions by North Korean agents, on the other hand, is a grave problem involving a direct violation of Japanese sovereignty and the fundamental human rights of the Japanese people, and I believe that it must be dealt with squarely. Against this background, I would like to ask the representatives of the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party their views on the abduction issue.
> HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The Japanese Communist Party views the abductions by North Korea as a state crime that absolutely cannot be condoned. We believe that it is important to secure compensation for the victims and to bring the facts to light. The Japanese Communist Party has taken up the abduction issue repeatedly in the Diet since March 1988, and in 1999, in plenary sessions of the House of Representatives, we argued that Japan should make efforts to solve the issue by opening a route for negotiations. It should be noted that we are refraining from comment at present, as the government is currently engaged in talks on the abduction issue, and comments based on incomplete information on the specific problems involved could hinder the negotiations.
>> Precisely because North Korea is a rogue state, we need to adopt a reasoned and comprehensive approach in our dealings with it, while taking a position of goodwill, not hostility.
> KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> The North Korean abductions are a state crime, and from a humanitarian point of view, also, they cannot be condoned. I believe we must continue our efforts to bring the facts to light.
>> With regard to the Social Democratic Party's relationship with the Korean Workers' Party, we have sent them a letter concerning the abduction issue, and unless we receive a clear answer we will freeze all ties. It should also be noted that Diet members from other parties besides the Social Democratic Party, including Liberal Democrats, took part in negotiations and contacts between Japan and North Korea in the 1990s. Further, Diet members from various parties, not only the Social Democrats, thought in the same way at that time; that is, they attempted to solve the abduction issue by treating it as a problem of missing persons.
>> I believe that the abduction issue should be resolved without delay through negotiations, based on the Pyongyang Declaration.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I do not deny that the Japanese Communist Party was the first to take up the abductions issue in the Diet. But it was also the Japanese Communist Party that played a central role in the "repatriation program" which sent many people to North Korea, including Japanese wives of ethnic Koreans. Do the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party agree with the legal amendments that are necessary to deal with the many illegal acts and human rights violations that North Korea is committing even now in Japan?
> KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> I cannot give my opinion on the need for legal amendments to deal with illegal acts by North Korea without seeing the contents of the laws concerned. Should it not be our first priority to determine an appropriate response under existing domestic law?
> NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is an indisputable premise that the existing legislation is inadequate to deal with unlawful acts by North Korea. Putting the events in perspective, was it not the Social Democratic Party that denied there was an abduction problem and obstructed an appropriate response under existing law?
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> At the recent international conference in Davos, Switzerland, which I attended, the delegates focused solely on Iraq and showed almost no interest in North Korea. The question of North Korea's nuclear capability has a major influence on national security, and the abductions are a serious violation of human rights. Japan should endeavor to gain recognition of these issues as problems that should be tackled by the international community as a whole.
>> I believe that, in future, Japan should take the initiative in creating a framework of international cooperation, and that this is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.
KUWABARA Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the Pyongyang Declaration, North Korea showed a willingness to negotiate, to overcome various obstacles and work toward normalization of diplomatic relations. Yet it has also declared that it is restarting its nuclear development program and withdrawing from the NPT-actions which are clearly incompatible with the Pyongyang Declaration. I believe that these actions are the result of North Korea engaging in brinkmanship directed at the United States, in an attempt to maintain a state system which is in critical condition.
>> With regard to this problem, the six nations concerned (China, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and the United States) should hold talks from the viewpoint of guaranteeing peace in Northeast Asia, while taking into account such factors as maintenance of the North Korean system, and Japan should play an active role in these consultations through diplomatic efforts.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The program to repatriate Korean residents of Japan and their families to North Korea was actively endorsed at the time by Diet members from the Liberal Democratic Party and the Socialist Party too. There was even a Cabinet approval on the subject in 1959. Thus, there is no truth in Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi's allegation that the Japanese Communist Party actively promoted this program on its own. Further, I believe that the responsibility for the subsequent inhumane treatment of those who returned home lies solely with the North Korean government.
>> As Mr. KUWABARA has said, it is important that the six nations concerned carry on diplomatic efforts for peace and security in Northeast Asia. Japan should take a reasoned approach to these negotiations in order to ensure that North Korea, which has repeatedly broken the rules, becomes a member of the international community.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Japan has respected the Pyongyang Declaration. However, the situation today is that the bilateral talks on the normalization of diplomatic relations, which resumed in Kuala Lumpur, have been broken off, and the list of 156 questions on the abduction issue has gone unanswered. Should we not recognize that North Korea is a state that ignores the rules, and pursue negotiations based on that awareness?
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As the members of the Commission engage in a lively free debate, there is a constitutional question related to the North Korean issue that we should discuss, namely, the requirements for invoking the right of self-defense. One of the requirements is "occurrence of an armed attack." This raises the question of how and by whom decisions should be made in the event that the nucleus of the government is destroyed at one blow, and also at what stage a cyberterrorist attack should be deemed to have occurred.
>> In the government's opinion, "B-type weapons use" (the use of weapons to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent the discharge of peacekeeping duties) poses a risk of violating Article 9. We should also discuss this point.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Am I correct in understanding Ms. KITAGAWA's comment as meaning that the state should not possess military forces?
KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)
>> It is my position, based on my belief in a "conscientious objector nation," that the state's military power should be gradually reduced.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I would like to ask Ms. KITAGAWA whether, in the course of its long friendship with North Korea, the Social Democratic Party has ever asked the Pyongyang government to reduce its massive military forces, which almost surpass those of Japan?
> KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)
>> In 2001, the Social Democratic Party made proposals for a nuclear-free Northeast Asia in its "Peace Concept for the 21st Century."
>> You mentioned the military strengths of North Korea and Japan, but Japan has the second largest military capacity in the world, and we should face this fact objectively.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi criticized the Social Democratic Party's response to the abduction issue, but the Social Democratic Party has never officially stated that no abductions occurred. Furthermore, we did address this issue in the 1990s, albeit inadequately.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution recognizes the possession of military forces for self- defense, but what is the Social Democratic Party's present position with regard to the Self-Defense Forces?
> KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> It is the policy of the Social Democratic Party that we should scale down the Self-Defense Forces and reconstitute them as a different organization.