Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation (Second Meeting)

Thursday, March 6, 2003

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning security and international cooperation (emergencies and the Constitution)

After statements were heard from Mr. OGAWA Kazuhisa concerning the above matters, questions were put to him; this was followed by discussion among the members.

Informant

Members who put questions to Mr. OGAWA

Main points of Mr. OGAWA's statement

1. Japan is not a "state under the rule of law."

>> In Japan, legislation is enacted for the sake of enactment. In order to raise the standards of the legal system, constant efforts must be made to revise existing laws. Otherwise, fundamental legal principles will not be realized. I fear that the same problem may affect the Research Commission on the Constitution, such that research is conducted for the sake of research itself.

>> It is necessary to rectify the "state of unconstitutionality," while also raising the level of perfection of the Constitution.

2. Has Japan acted in a manner befitting the spirit of the Constitution?

>> In the area of foreign relations, we must verify whether Japan has acted in the spirit of the Constitution expressed as "pacifism" and "U.N.-centeredness." In this context, "pacifism" implies working actively for the realization of world peace. Such efforts can gain the confidence of the international community and will contribute to the security and economic prosperity of one's own country. "U.N.-centeredness" describes the means for the realization of world peace.

>> During the Gulf War, Japan possessed the following advantages: (a) Japan was a power projection platform for the United States, (b) Japan was Iraq's largest aid donor, (c) Japan was a leading contributor of funds to the United Nations. We must face up to the fact that, notwithstanding these advantages, Japan was unable to assert its presence.

>> The linkage between terrorist groups and nations developing weapons of mass destruction poses a threat to Japan's defense. Japan must recognize that it can legitimately respond to this threat based on the right to self-defense. Having recognized this, Japan should then work towards achieving a peaceful solution to the situation.

>> When we examine the "emergency-response legislation" from the perspective of protecting the lives of the people, we observe that laws for the protection of the people, including legislation concerning emergency shelter and guidance, have been put off to the future. Consequently, there is no framework to support the smooth operations of the Self-Defense Forces, firefighters and the police. From the perspective of the emergency response of the police, firefighters and local government organizations, a framework for emergency shelter and guidance in the event of an amphibious military attack can be based on existing emergency measures for tidal wave disasters. Likewise, emergency measures for large-scale earthquakes can be used as a basis for emergency responses in the event of missile attack or major acts of terrorism.

>> From the perspective of the people's right to life, medical helicopter services should be developed for use in traffic accidents. It is said that this has been delayed by turf wars among related government agencies. This in itself represents a "state of unconstitutionality."

3. For the Constitution of Japan to be peerless in the world

>> To allow the Constitution to function, it is important to proceed systematically with certain ideals and philosophies in mind. First of all, problems in such basic areas as disaster prevention, health and medical services, and traffic accidents should be resolved. After that, we can cope with the more complicated problems of foreign relations and security. If the "state of unconstitutionality" can be resolved for the basic problems, I believe this would generate momentum for raising the Constitution's level of perfection.


Main points of questions and comments to Mr. OGAWA

YAMAGUCHI Taimei (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Considering the special features of the Japanese land mass, natural disasters constitute the most serious problem. But the Constitution contains no provisions for responding to major natural disasters and serious emergencies. We should mend our old habit of enacting legislation only after disaster has struck. I believe the state's basic stance towards protecting people's lives and property in case of natural disasters and national emergencies should be written into the Constitution. What is your view on this?

>> Regarding natural disasters and other serious emergencies, I believe the Constitution should include provisions for determining the respective responsibilities of the Self-Defense Forces, the police and firefighters, as well as respective responsibilities and functions of the national and local governments. What is your view?


SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> Suppose Japan is faced with a military emergency and the United States is preparing to make a preemptive strike. In what position would that put Japan's self-defense right? This question has never been clearly answered in Diet debates. What is your understanding of this issue?

>> Currently, the people are very concerned with the possibility of a missile attack. In your statement, you proposed that "emergency measures of large-scale earthquakes be applied to missile attacks or major acts of terrorism." What do you mean by this? If the present legislative framework is inadequate for this purpose, where do such inadequacies exist?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> In certain respects, Japan continues to drag along in the state of mind that prevailed during the postwar Occupation. What is the main cause of the current state of the Constitution?

>> I believe that Japan's greatest achievement in the security field during the past decade was its participation in PKO activities. It has recently been pointed out that the scope of Japan's PKO activities should be expanded through the review of the five principles on PKO participation. Can Japan do more than it is already doing? In view of the "theory of integrated use of force," it appears to me that the present framework of the Constitution and the International Peace Cooperation Law will not allow that, and that the Constitution will have to be revised on this point. What is your view?

>> How did the United States allow the 9-11 terrorist attacks to take place? What were the major causes of this lapse in security?


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> It is unacceptable that the Constitution makes no provisions for emergencies. The restriction of individual rights inevitably comes up when considering emergency response, and the Constitution's concept of the "welfare of the public" does not fully address this question. For this and other reasons, do you not think that explicit provisions for emergencies should be written into the Constitution?

>> Regarding the problem of Iraq, Foreign Minister KAWAGUCHI has stated that it is in the best interests of Japan to maintain an ambiguous position. Such an attitude surely cannot be permitted. What can Japan do to assert its presence in the Iraq crisis?

>> I believe that Japan-U.S. relations should be a relation of equals, as is the Anglo-U.S. relation. What is your opinion on this matter?


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> In the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, roughly 90% of all fatalities occurred in a very short time span immediately after the quake. Of course rescue operations have a very important role to play in natural disasters. But doesn't this figure point to the importance of urban planning with appropriate earthquake-proofing and disaster prevention measures?

>> In the event of major disaster, recovery and reconstruction are one of the most vital requirements. In the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, more than 400 people died while living in temporary housing. But no effective measures were taken. The government took the position that individuals were ineligible for receiving aid for reconstruction and daily living. Doesn't this violate the principle of the right to a decent life as established in the Constitution?

>> As stated by the Informant, I agree that rescue and aid activities are not the responsibility of the Self-Defense Forces and that top priority must be given to upgrading the capabilities for firefighting to cope with first-response requirements. However, firefighting-related subsidies in the fiscal 2003 budget were slashed, and Japan's total firefighting personnel falls short of the required level as defined under "firefighting standards." Why is it that adequate measures have not been taken in this vital area?


IMAGAWA Masami (Social Democratic Party)

>> Please give us an outline of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) of the United States, and explain why you think Japan has so much trouble making progress in establishing organizations for emergency response.

>> How have the experiences of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake and the subway sarin gas attack been incorporated into Japan's emergency-response measures?

>>> I believe it is necessary for us to examine the day-to-day implementation problems that come up in the execution of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and the status of U.S. military bases in Japan in the post-Cold War era. The Japanese government has failed even to gain a basic knowledge of the current situation. Furthermore, the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement is not being soundly enforced. What are your views on these matters?


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> The Constitution should be amended to include provisions for emergency-response organizations and the limitation of basic individual rights in the event of an emergency. I take the following position: (a) A compartmentalized bureaucracy is obstructing progress in emergency-response and disaster countermeasures. The present system of having a series of separate laws to respond to different types of disasters should be changed, and the laws should be unified as far as possible. (b) Organizations and agencies responsible for different types of disasters should also be unified as far as possible. What are your views on these two points?


SHIMOJI Mikio (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> U.S. military bases in Okinawa play an important role for Japan, as well as for the rest of Asia. But Okinawa is being forced to take on an undue burden. I believe that the burden placed on Okinawa under the current security framework should be reduced as follows: transfer some military exercises to Hawaii, Guam and elsewhere; reconsider the construction of the Henoko base. Furthermore, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty should be reviewed. What are your views on this matter?


SUEMATSU Yoshinori (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> Since the end of the war, Japan has always tried to curry favor with the United States, which I think is rooted in Japan's fear of the United States. What is your view?

>> I agree with the Informant's statement that "systemic fatigue in the legal system has been left unattended." I believe this was caused by the very strong "allergic reaction" of the people in postwar Japan. What is your view?

>> I think the Constitution should include an explicit provision obligating the general public to uphold and to protect the Constitution. This would serve to raise the public's consciousness of the need for national defense. What is your view?


KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Commenting on Japan's response to a possible firing of a missile by North Korea, Director-General ISHIBA of the Defense Agency has stated that if the intent of such a firing is unclear, the Self-Defense Forces will have to limit themselves to disaster response. What is your interpretation of this statement?

>> We have come to the limit of revising the Constitution by interpretation. I believe it is better to formally revise the Constitution to allow Japan to contribute more actively to the international community. What is your view on this matter?

>> Medical services and facilities in my electoral district of Sado Island are inadequate. In order to develop medical helicopter services using the medical staff and helicopters of the Self-Defense Forces, I believe the related budget should be transferred from the Health, Labour and Welfare Ministry to the Defense Agency. What is your view on this matter?

>> We have yet to enact legislation concerning a national referendum for constitutional amendment. I recognize this to be the Diet's "neglect of duty." Do you believe that prompt action should be taken for the enactment of such legislation?


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

NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Now that the Cold War system has disintegrated, what we have is a series of "regional Cold Wars" in North Korea and elsewhere. Given this situation, how is Japan going to respond to a conflict between major countries? What measures can be taken to bring the forces of deterrence into play in the "regional Cold Wars?" We must put our heads together to find answers to these critical questions.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty establishes a relation in which the United States protects Japan from external attack, while Japan provides the United States with military bases. In this sense, the Treaty is asymmetrical and unequal. Regarding the Status of Forces Agreement which is based on the Security Treaty, it is only recently that the government of Japan has announced a position which envisages the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement. These facts undeniably point to Japan's generally weak-kneed stance towards the United States. I would like to know the views of Mr. SHIMOJI concerning the Status of Forces Agreement.

> SHIMOJI Mikio (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Every time there is some trouble, voices are raised for the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement. But no modification or improvement has been made to date. I realize that people who are the victims of the military-base problem want to see the unequal rules rectified.

>> Alliances and emergency-response laws can function only when they are understood and supported by the people. In light of this fact, partial modifications in the implementation of the Status of Forces Agreement will not suffice. Instead, we should call on both the Japanese and American sides to generate a debate towards the actual revision of the Agreement. I believe this course of action will be very meaningful from the perspective of developing and deepening the ties of confidence between the two countries.


NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> The Constitution defines "what must be done" and "what must not be done." With this in mind, we must take action based on the spirit of the Constitution. In this context, it is necessary to consider the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement with an aim of creating a better arrangement.

>> To translate the provisions of Article 13 into reality, it is vitally important to create a system for medical helicopter services and to develop emergency-response legislation. The government's proposed emergency-response bills are incomplete in that provisions for sheltering the public in an emergency have been postponed. Also, to prevent U.S. forces from taking unrestricted action during an emergency, a special emergency version of the "Status of Forces Agreement" should be concluded.


IMAGAWA Masami (Social Democratic Party)

>> Of course Japan-U.S. ties are important. But U.S. forces stationed in Japan were deployed in the Gulf War without the prior consultations mandated by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. This exemplifies the problems inherent in the execution of the Security Treaty. Measures should be taken to promote the sound management of the Security Treaty. For instance, the heads of local governments with jurisdiction over areas in which U.S. military bases are located should be seated on the Joint Committee which deliberates on the management of U.S. military installations in Japan.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Mr. IMAGAWA stated that Japan-U.S. ties are important. However, didn't the political party to which he belongs take the position that the Self-Defense Forces are unconstitutional? If you adopt this position, what does it mean to say that Japan-U.S. relations are important?

> IMAGAWA Masami (Social Democratic Party)

>> The Socialist Party prior to the Murayama Cabinet subscribed to the position that both the Self-Defense Forces and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty were unconstitutional. However, under the Murayama Cabinet, the party shifted its position to say that the Self-Defense Forces were within the bounds of the Constitution and that the Security Treaty should be maintained. At the present time, the party has no intention of reversing its position on these matters.


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> The Status of Forces Agreement establishes unequal relations and should obviously be revised. It is inexcusable to construct new military bases for the transfer of existing bases without a clear commitment to time frame. Regarding Iraq, the United States is preparing to go beyond the bounds of U.N. rules with its preemptive strike strategies. In light of these conditions, Japan must review its relations with the United States, including the problem of U.S. military bases in Okinawa.

>> Current responses to natural disasters do not properly guarantee the right to life. This Commission should conduct research for the purpose of filling the gap between current responses and the spirit of the Constitution's guarantee of the right to life.