Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan (the Constitution and treaties [in relation to the Iraq and North Korean questions]: from the viewpoints of the Constitution of Japan and the UN Charter together with the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty)
A free discussion on the above matters was held.
Main points of comments by members of the Commission (in order of presentation)
Initial round of comments by representatives of each party
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Having learned from the experience of the League of Nations, which did not function because it lacked a system of military sanctions, the United Nations provides for such measures in its Charter, and this can be said to be one of the Charter's main characteristics. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 are cases of the authorization of military sanctions by the United Nations.
>> The government's interpretation of "the right of belligerency" in the second sentence of Paragraph 2 of Article 9 is that it is a general term for the rights possessed in international law by a belligerent nation, but judging by the fact that the English text of the Constitution says "the right of belligerency of the state," I think this interpretation is incorrect. Further, with regard to Paragraph 2 of Article 9, different questions arise depending on whether or not the phrase "In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph" in the first sentence is taken to modify the second sentence, "The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized." (a) If the phrase does modify the second sentence, the question is whether the right of belligerency should be construed as existing in cases other than war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (b) If it does not modify the second sentence, the question is whether the right of belligerency is denied while recognizing the right of self-defense. I believe that we should debate these points.
MAEHARA Seiji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The UN Charter recognizes the use of force in exceptional circumstances, which are limited to the exercise of the right of self-defense and other cases authorized by a Security Council resolution. In my view, the attack on Iraq does not constitute such an exception, for the following reasons:
- While it is not entirely impossible to understand the preemptive strike advocated by the United States as a measure to combat terrorism, it does not meet the three conditions for exercise of the right of self-defense (i.e., there is an imminent and unlawful harm, no other measures are available, and the action taken is limited to the minimum necessary to counterattack) and therefore it is not recognized under the current established international law.
- With regard to the Security Council resolutions claimed as legal grounds by the United States, it is self-serving to say that Resolution 1441 authorized the automatic use of force, and although Resolutions 678 and 687 did authorize the use of force, whether there is currently a threat to the peace is a matter for the Security Council to decide. Thus, the use of force based on the way that certain nations interpret these resolutions is a violation of the UN Charter.
>> Japan's support for a strike against Iraq which is not justified under the UN Charter violates the obligation to observe treaties, stipulated in Article 98, Paragraph 2, and the obligation of public officials to uphold the Constitution, stipulated in Article 99, and I intend to pursue Prime Minister KOIZUMI's political responsibility in this matter.
>> The government and ruling parties contend that Japan has no choice but to declare its support for the United States because of the North Korean issue, but this support violates the Constitution and the principle of international cooperation. Moreover, considering that the lead-up to the attack on Iraq has left the United Nations in disarray and actually made it more difficult to deal with the North Korean issue in that forum, I believe that, rather than supporting American unilateralist action, it is more important that we strive to maintain the Security Council as a functioning body.
>> Since Japan provides the United States with important military bases and bears substantial costs, we should insist on our stance while making those contributions clear.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> It is regrettable that the situation has reached the point of an attack on Iraq in spite of public opposition in Britain, Japan, and the United States. But even though no new resolution authorizing the use of force was adopted, on taking a number of factors into consideration, I will not go so far as to say that I cannot support the current U.S. action. Those factors include: (a) the fact that, as yet, no solution has been found as to how the international community can stand up to indiscriminate global terrorism; (b) the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of terrorists; and (c) the fact that it is difficult to inspect for chemical weapons.
>> In dealing with terrorism, international law and the UN system have not caught up with the realities. The actions of the United States could also be evaluated as similar to actions by a UN police force to control crimes against the international community, or as an intervention to eradicate terrorism.
>> I agree with the KOIZUMI administration's policy on the Iraq offensive in its broad outlines, which consist mainly of holding firm to our alliance with the United States, not participating in the use of force, and cooperating proactively in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. However, there is no denying that the policy has not been explained adequately to the public.
>> Ideally, in our bilateral relationship, Japan should give the United States advice as a friend, but I feel that the Japanese government authorities, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have a warped psychology toward Washington. This reflects, among other things, the servile view toward the United States that was fostered during the Occupation, and also the influence of postwar education on democracy.
>> I question whether Article 9 and the Preamble are a sufficient basis on which to face the present state of the world. I have no objection to Japan emphasizing international cooperation with the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty as its axis, but to make this cooperation more solid, we need to set the Constitution in order.
FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)
>> In an international community in which the United States continues to have unipolar dominance, the role of the United Nations is in question. The United States and Japan cite Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 as the legal basis for the attack on Iraq, but the UN Secretary-General and many countries have expressed doubts in this regard, and I am forced to conclude that the attack is illegal under international law. I believe that this situation, in which the United States determines actions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, poses a grave problem for the functioning of the United Nations.
>> So far, the government's response to the Iraq question has been ambiguous. This is not a stance befitting an economic power. It is also contrary to one of the requirements of democracy, namely, that the government owes the people an explanation of important matters, even during the decision-making process.
>> Instead of dealing with security issues in an ad hoc way as in the past, we should establish emergency response provisions in the Constitution and put permanent legislation in place. Further, we should enable the Self-Defense Forces to take action in the same way as other nations' armies, including the question of weapons use.
>> The North Korean issue is directly linked to Japan's security. I consider that the framework laid down by the Pyongyang Declaration ended as a failure. In future, Japan should deal with North Korea with a strong attitude, not excluding the possibility of imposing economic sanctions, while working in concert with the United States and South Korea.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I can see no right or justice in the attack on Iraq, and I call for its immediate cessation. My main reasons are as follows: (a) Even though the road to a peaceful resolution through inspections had been mapped out, the United States arbitrarily cut this process short and resorted to the use of force. (b) The attack is not based on the UN Charter or the series of Security Council resolutions; further, the goal of overthrowing the Hussein regime amounts to interference in domestic affairs, which is prohibited by the UN Charter, and risks destroying the framework of peace that the international community has built over the years. (c) It will cause enormous harm to the general civilian population. >> The government's handling of the Iraq issue is problematic for a number of reasons, including: (a) its inability to explain the basis for its support of U.S. policy; (b) the danger of uncritically following the United States' lead, and the fact that it would be more consistent with both Japan's national interest and public opinion if we were to point out to Washington where it has gone wrong; (c) the fact that Japan has a special duty to defend international rules, both as a nation whose Constitution proclaims the renunciation of war and the nonmaintenance of war potential, and as a nation that has maintained good relations with Iraq. Accordingly, the government should appeal to the United States to call off its attack.
UEDA Munenori (Social Democratic Party)
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI's declaration of support for the U.S. action on Iraq is tantamount to Japan's being involved in the attack while turning its back on the Constitution, the general climate of the international community, and efforts for peace. If we are to reconcile the bilateral alliance with international cooperation, the reasonable approach would be to urge the United States to exercise greater prudence with regard to attacking Iraq. By contending that international cooperation is not possible without the bilateral alliance, the government misconstrues the intent of the Preamble of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which affirms the spirit of the UN Charter. This is not a position that should be taken by a sovereign state.
>> Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441, which are cited as grounds for attacking Iraq, do not authorize the use of force, and consequently the attack on Iraq violates the UN Charter.
>> Recognizing that the use of force violates the framework of international order and cooperation, Japan should act responsibly to open the way to a peaceful future as a realistic choice in accordance with the Constitution of Japan, which is evolved beyond the UN Charter in that it repudiates even "just war."
INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)
>> The question posed by the Iraq and North Korean problems is how we regard the security of Japan, given the existing Constitution and treaties. At present, there are various destabilizing factors in the region surrounding Japan, and in light of this situation it is necessary to strengthen Japan's security system. It will not be possible for Japan to make complete security arrangements on its own. We should of course do whatever we can to improve our own defense capacity, but it will be essential to cooperate with other nations.
>>In reviewing the question of Japan's security, we need to reexamine (a) our thinking about maintaining an exclusively defense-oriented posture, and (b) our thinking about the exercise of the right of collective self-defense. We should take a flexible approach to the latter, in order to forge an even closer cooperative relationship with the United States and to play an active part in United Nations operations.
>> Although the United Nations has not performed the role anticipated by its founders in relation to Iraq and similar problems, it has achieved a great deal in areas that do not involve the use of military force, such as multilateral dialogue and reconstruction assistance. In future, the United Nations should play its part actively in such fields.
>> In reviewing the question of Japan's security, we should not expect too much of the United Nations; instead, measures based on the Japan-U.S. security system should be central to our thinking.
Comments after the first round, in order of presentation
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I believe that the legal basis for the present armed attack on
Iraq by the United States is the exercise of the right of self-defense.
If we consider the danger of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction passing
into the hands of terrorists, can't it be said that there is an "imminent
and unlawful harm" as required for the exercise of the right of self-defense?
Also, in political terms, isn't the armed attack justified by Security
Council Resolution 1441? >> The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999
was carried out on grounds of humanitarian intervention, with both France
and Germany participating, but on that occasion there was no Security Council
resolution authorizing the use of force. As I understand it, the international
community has not subsequently regarded the bombing of Yugoslavia as a
problem. What do the members of the Commission think about this point?
SUGIURA Seiken (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Commission members from the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party have made statements adhering strictly to the Constitution, but, if I remember rightly, during the process that led to enactment of the Constitution, Diet members from the left wing of the Socialist Party expressed opposition in the Diet to a constitution that did not allow Japan to possess the military strength to defend itself, and the Japanese Communist Party followed suit.
>> With regard to the questions raised by Mr. HANASHI, we should recognize that the Security Council does not decide everything. We ought not to overrate the Security Council.
>> I believe that the legal basis for the attack on Iraq is the exercise of the right of self-defense. The U.S. Congress has accepted that basis in the case of Iraq, and Security Council Resolution 1441 also reinforces its legitimacy.
>> Japan should make efforts to ensure that war damage is kept to a minimum. Also, the Security Council is obliged to take appropriate measures vis-a-vis the United States, and in this way they should take steps to get the United Nations functioning again.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In Britain, the individual Members of Parliament had an opportunity to make clear by a vote whether they supported the attack on Iraq. There is something wrong when no such opportunity exists in Japan, which has the same parliamentary cabinet system, and we should study whether an opportunity can be provided.
>> There is a mood that suggests we have no choice but to support the United States, largely because of the North Korean missile problem, but we need to give careful thought to whether that is a correct perception of the facts. In connection with the missile issue, there is also a need to review the government's interpretation regarding the exercise of the right of collective self-defense.
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI's support for the attack on Iraq violates Article 98, Paragraph 2, and Article 99. The Prime Minister should take responsibility for this violation and resign.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I feel powerless over Iraq because Japan has been unable to declare its will as a nation. Also, it is very unfortunate for Japan to have taken on a Prime Minister who cannot clearly express the nation's will.
>> If Security Council Resolutions 1441, 678, and 687 provide legal grounds for the attack on Iraq, why was there an attempt to obtain a new resolution authorizing the use of force? Is this not a clear logical inconsistency?
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI's decision to support the attack on Iraq should be discussed in the Diet, and the debate should also cover the perceived relationship between the questions of North Korea and Iraq. Prime Minister KOIZUMI's decision is clearly against the wishes of the people, who want to build peace, and he should resign immediately.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Iraq and North Korean questions have a number of points in common, including terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and the state's oppression of the human rights of its own people.
>> The North Korean question is a more direct concern for Japan, which could be said to be an interested party. It is sometimes suggested that Japan's intentions in the Pyongyang Declaration have been frustrated, but it is actually North Korea's expectations of deriving economic aid and other benefits from the Declaration that have been frustrated.
>> I believe that the attack on Iraq is not against the UN Charter and international rules.
>> In Britain, when a government motion in support of the attack on Iraq was passed by a majority vote, many members of the ruling party voted against it, but there were also quite a few votes in favor among the opposition. That is what a healthy democracy looks like.
MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> UN peacekeeping has its limits. Diplomacy may seek what is right, but its outcomes are decided in a context of power and international relations, and one cannot be certain that the United Nations will always do right. It is problematic to depend too much on the United Nations. We must not forget that every country's behavior is determined by its national interest.
>> I would argue that continuing inspections cannot bring about the disposal of weapons of mass destruction. What alternative is proposed by the members of the opposition who are against attacking Iraq? Also, how do they view the threat of terrorism and biological weapons?
>> We should debate the question raised by Mr. TANIKAWA with regard to the "right of belligerency" in Article 9, Paragraph 2. Also, in light of the North Korean issue, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau's interpretation regarding the exercise of the right of collective self-defense should be urgently reviewed.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Japan should think about the legality of the war being conducted by the United States from the standpoint of observing the Constitution's pacifist principles and the UN Charter. Given the fact that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Hans Blix, the head of the weapons inspections commission, are working toward a peaceful resolution, I view the attack on Iraq as very much open to dispute.
>> I believe it is problematic that, even as the United Nations was attempting to deal with the question of weapons of mass destruction by conducting thorough inspections, the United States blocked these efforts.
>> With regard to Mr. SUGIURA's comment that, during the process that led to enactment of the Constitution, the Japanese Communist Party agreed with Diet members from the left wing of the Socialist Party who opposed a constitution that did not allow Japan to possess the capacity for self-defense, I do not know the details, but the party would not have agreed with such an argument.
>> With regard to NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, while there may be debate over the case for humanitarian intervention, I believe that the international understanding today is that it was not the right method to adopt.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> I think that, at present, we stand at a crossroads, facing a choice between two forms of international order: whether to follow the "rule of law" based on the United Nations, UN resolutions, and so on, or whether to recognize the "rule of might."
>> The UN Charter recognizes the use of force only (a) in cases where the right of self-defense is invoked under armed attack, or (b) in cases of UN military sanctions based on a Security Council resolution. In my view, as the attack on Iraq does not correspond to either of these cases, it ignores the rules of the international community.
>> The government shows disregard for the rule of law in supporting the attack on Iraq despite its own earlier contention that Resolution 1441 alone was not sufficient basis for the use of force.
>> Before stating Japan's position, the government should have fully registered the fact that the purpose of the attack on Iraq has changed repeatedly, from eradicating terrorism, to eliminating weapons of mass destruction, to overthrowing the Hussein regime, and also the fact that American unilateralists are unwilling to play by international rules. In stating its position, the government should reaffirm that the Constitution does not recognize the use of force as a means of settling international disputes.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> If we take as a basis Article 9, international law, and the resolution, "Declaration to Bid Farewell to War," that was adopted by the plenary session of the House of Representatives on May 30, 2000, we should naturally seek a peaceful solution to the Iraq question, and this Commission should point out the fact that Prime Minister KOIZUMI's support for the United States is contrary to these principles.
>> The agreed interpretation is that Resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force. Further, given that the use of force will lead to collapse of the Middle East peace process, a solution should be sought by peaceful means, along the lines of inspections.
>> American strategic thinking has changed to allow preemptive strikes. Japan should reason with the United States on this point and persuade it to return to the UN framework.
SUEMATSU Yoshinori (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Both might and right are a necessary part of international politics, but the United States was unable to persuade either the Security Council or the international community that it is legitimate to attack Iraq. Prime Minister KOIZUMI has decided on the basis of the Japan-U.S. alliance to support the U.S. attack, even if it cannot be justified. However, there is a danger that, if the United States repeatedly wages unjustified wars, Japan will be dragged into them and will end up, in effect, exercising the right of collective self-defense.
>> Continued inspections would have been a less costly way of preventing Iraq from manufacturing or acquiring weapons of mass destruction, but since Japan has nevertheless chosen to support the U.S. war, it will have to bear its share of the costs plus reconstruction assistance, which together will amount to several tens of trillions of yen. I believe that improving our missile defenses against the threat from North Korea or elsewhere would be more reassuring to the Japanese public and more in keeping with the national interest.
>> Instead of resorting to war, which is a mode that belongs to the twentieth century, we should explore peaceful solutions by means of inspections and the like, which are the mode of the 21st century. I believe that this would be consistent with the intent of the Constitution.
OHATA Akihiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> While the majority of the public remains unconvinced of the grounds for war, Prime Minister KOIZUMI has declared support for the U.S. action. I believe that his statement violates the pacifist and UN-centered principles of the Constitution.
>> The Preamble of the UN Charter declares remorse for the scourge of war suffered twice over, and out of this remorse the use of force was placed under the restraint of the Security Council. Today, however, as the United States and Britain are about to depart from the Security Council restraints and attack Iraq, I think the criteria for the use of force have become unclear.
>> I believe that, in light of the Constitution and the UN Charter, Japan should first explore methods that can be agreed on in the United Nations.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We should view the attack on Iraq in the light of the principles of the UN Charter, which came to fruition as a set of norms prohibiting armed attack.
>> In my view, an attack on Iraq that is not a UN action under Article 2 of the UN Charter violates Article 53.
>> The United States is about to attack Iraq based on its own judgment that Iraq is a danger and that attempts to resolve the issue through the United Nations have reached their limit. This action is unacceptable in light of the principle of not allowing any party to take the law into their own hands, which has evolved in modern and contemporary law.
SUGIURA Seiken (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI's support for the United States does not violate the Constitution in any way. Security Council Resolution 1441 has already determined that Iraq is at fault.
>> A speaker commented that the British parliament considered a government motion on joining the coalition against Iraq, but Britain is in a completely different situation from Japan as its military is taking part in the use of armed force, and thus we cannot discuss Britain and Japan in the same breath.
>> The question of whether the attack on Iraq meets the conditions laid down in Article 51 of the UN Charter is under debate, but we should also take into account such circumstances as the support for a preventive use of force against Iraq that exists in the U.S. Congress and domestic public opinion.
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> There has been little discussion of the attack on Iraq from the viewpoint of Japan's security, but protecting national security is the most important priority of the state. Having suffered a terrorist attack in September 2001, the United States is acting to preserve its own peace and that of the world by ridding the international community of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and this has a bearing on the security of Japan.
>> While it is to be hoped that the United Nations will preserve peace, the UN Charter still identifies Japan as an "enemy nation," we do not have a permanent seat on the Security Council, and, moreover, the system of UN sanctions is not functioning. Situated as we are in a comparatively unstable region, if the United Nations cannot protect our security, we need to rely on the strength of our allies. In that connection, we should consider the right of collective self-defense.
>> The problems of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction affect Japan too, and it is natural for us to support the United States. If we want to get rid of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, there is no choice but to do it America's way.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Considering that the inspections began because of U.S. military pressure, we cannot expect to get rid of weapons of mass destruction merely by insisting on continued inspections. It would have been preferable to organize a multinational coalition force based on a UN resolution, but when various factors such as the opposition of France, which holds a veto, are taken into account, Japan clearly has no alternative but to support the United States.
>> Today, with North Korea about to possess nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, the problems of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction can be dealt with only to a limited extent within the UN framework. Japan expects too much of the United Nations, and it is doubtful whether it is safe to entrust Japan's security to the United Nations.
>> The present international order was created by the victors in World War II, and it is time for Japan to conduct itself in relation to the international community on the premise that it will build its own system to defend itself.
SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It is up to the Security Council to decide whether Iraq's behavior is a threat to the international community, what kind of action can be taken against it, and within what limits. The real threat to the international community is caused by one nation acting on its own independent judgment when a problem arises, despite the absence of a Security Council decision.
>> The Japan-U.S. alliance corresponds to a "regional arrangement" under Article 53 of the UN Charter, but the UN Charter recognizes regional arrangements only to the extent that they conform with the purposes of the United Nations. Prime Minister KOIZUMI's decision to give precedence to a "regional arrangement," the Japan-U.S. alliance, over international cooperation is problematic, and it violates Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
>> President Bush has said that the United States is taking action because the United Nations did not, but we should discuss the relationship between the United Nations and the "coalition of the willing" that supports the United States.
>> It is my belief that Prime Minister KOIZUMI's support for the United States violates Article 98, Paragraph 2. Mr. KOIZUMI should explain why his support for the United States does not violate this clause.
NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I would like to see a world federation come into being and world peace become a reality, but considering the fact that the United Nations is still imperfect, the history of tragic wars that have had to be fought before peace could be achieved, and the fact that after twelve years Iraq has still not disposed of its weapons of mass destruction, we can say that the American action is unavoidable and Prime Minister KOIZUMI is correct to support it.
KURATA Masatoshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Although I understand the view that the rule of law must not give way to the rule of might, the international community has not yet reached the point where the rule of law prevails over the rule of might.
>> The North Korean question is a more pressing problem for Japan, and against that background it was inevitable that Prime Minister KOIZUMI would support the United States.
>> The opposition members claim that Japan's dependence on the United States is a disgrace, but if that is true, Japan should be able to protect itself. Only when we can protect our own nation can we talk about ideals.
>> There is a common understanding that Article 9 does not prohibit self-defense. We should study whether it is permissible to send the Self-Defense Forces overseas to help eradicate terrorism.
NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I acknowledge the view that the United Nations is inadequate, but if that is so, it is important that we make day-to-day efforts to protect and sustain its functions.
>> In the present instance, world opinion is almost unanimous in condemning Iraq. There should have been a more tenacious effort to address the issue through the United Nations by passing a resolution and putting together measures against Iraq.
>> Did Japan take the initiative by working toward a solution centered on the United Nations? Further, it is doubtful whether Japan should support the United States' action when three of the five permanent members of the Security Council are against it and the majority of the United Nations can be said to be opposed.