Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
A report was heard from the chairman of each Subcommittee; each report was followed by free discussion.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Ideal Constitution as
Supreme Law, and free discussion
The "Emperor as symbol" system, with special reference to the
Emperor's powers and acts in matters of state
Report by Subcommittee Chairman YASUOKA Okiharu
(Main points)
>> It was the common understanding of all the parties that the Emperor's acts in matters of state are matters entrusted to the Emperor under the Constitution by the people, with whom sovereignty resides, that the responsibility for them rests with the Cabinet, and that they are formal and ceremonial in character.
>> Although it was recognized that some of the Emperor's acts can be classified in categories other than acts in matters of state, opinion was divided on the questions of whether they should be subdivided into public acts, private acts, and so on, and whether, if public acts are to be recognized, some sort of criterion should be established for classifying acts as public.
>> Based on the statements by the informants at the last two sessions,
I believe that, in order to conduct a debate on the Emperor-as-symbol system
as it stands, with regard to the Emperor's acts we need to pursue research
in such areas as how those acts are performed in actual practice, looking
at concrete examples.
Free discussion
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I believe that the Emperor system is part of Japanese culture, part of our national identity, and we should continue to uphold it in the future. Furthermore, it is my understanding that none of the political parties sees any need to revise Chapter I of the Constitution for the present.
>> Given that, under the Constitution, the Emperor is entrusted with acts in matters of state by the people, with whom sovereignty resides, I think these acts should be conducted with complete openness before the people, and I believe that this would also be beneficial in terms of making the Emperor-as-symbol system secure.
>> As I understand it, a background factor in the debate over the classification of the Emperor's acts is the fact that the Emperor, being an individual person, engages in various activities besides acts in matters of state, and that, moreover, there is a close relationship between those activities and the fact that he is the symbol of the nation.
>> With regard to whether it should be expressly stipulated in the Constitution that the Emperor is the head of State, personally I believe that it would be more clear-cut if we recognized this in the Constitution.
>> With regard to the Emperor's acts, I think that as we clarify
their outlines and their substance by discussing concrete examples in a
public forum, a number of things will gradually fall into place, such as
what kind of acts are ideally suited to the Emperor-as-symbol, what form
should be taken by the Cabinet's advice and approval, and the ideal form
of the institutions that support the Emperor system, such as the Imperial
household economy. In the process, I expect we will also arrive in due
course at a conclusion as to whether it should be expressly stipulated
in the Constitution that the Emperor is head of State.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> In thinking about the Emperor system, I believe it is important to grasp the fact that under the existing Constitution the Emperor system is governed by the principle of popular sovereignty.
>> With regard to the Emperor's acts in matters of state, there is a need for an open debate.
>> As the existing Constitution has adopted the principle of popular
sovereignty, I am opposed to stating explicitly in the Constitution that
the Emperor is head of State. Also, in my view, we are talking at cross
purposes in this debate because we each have a different idea of what is
actually meant by "head of State."
NAKAYAMA Masaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In a televised debate in which I once took part, a member of the Japanese Communist Party stated that they would abolish the Emperor system in the future, but that the Imperial family could be retained.
>> In recent years, citizens' referendums have been held on various issues all over the country, but considering that the Preamble of the existing Constitution begins with the words "We, the Japanese people, acting through our . . . representatives . . . ," I think these referendums can be regarded as a malfunctioning of democracy. What if a residents' referendum were held on the Emperor system on the grounds that the Emperor derives his position from the "will of the people," or something like that? Wouldn't it destabilize the Emperor-as-symbol system? Also, we should discuss again what is meant by "the will of the people."
>> The seventh-century statesman Prince Shotoku originated the idea
of separating authority and power and ensuring that authority, i.e., the
status of the Emperor, would not be shaken by political upheaval. This
is a common refrain I see in the Emperor-as-symbol system.
KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)
>> I agree with the informant Justice SONOBE, who said, "The new Constitution embodies new ideals." I believe that the only aspects of the Emperor system that have been perpetuated in the existing Constitution are the title "Emperor" and certain functions, and that the Emperor is no more than an entity whose existence is prescribed by the principles of popular sovereignty, parliamentary democracy, and respect for human rights.
>> With regard to acts in matters of state, there is a strict division between the Cabinet, which possesses the effective power of decision and provides advice and approval, and the Emperor, who performs the actual acts. I believe we should draw the line at adding any more acts in matters of state. In my view, the Emperor in his private capacity, when not performing acts in matters of state, is not the symbol of the State or the unity of the people.
>> We should consider whether Japan, with over 1.68 million foreign residents as of the year 2000, really needs a symbol of the unity of the people, and in so doing we should take into account the viewpoint of what constitutes the State.
>> I believe we need to discuss carefully the proper form of the
Emperor system, including how to guarantee that in maintaining the system
in existence we do not require the members of the Imperial family to sacrifice
themselves for the State.
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In the process which led to the enactment of the existing Constitution, the word "symbol" was produced after a great deal of thought, and it expresses the essential aspect of the Emperor.
>> I would argue that the GHQ's action in inserting the phrase "with whom resides sovereign power" after "from the will of the people" in Article 1 has made the Emperor's status unclear, leading to the current controversy over who is head of State.
>> Historically, the Emperor has always had the status of Japan's
representative, and we should clarify the Emperor's status by stating this
fact explicitly in the Constitution, whether or not we use the words "head
of State."
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Emperor system is a highly admirable system, and there is no need to disturb it.
>> As a related issue, I am interested in the relationship of the Emperor system and Article 14, Paragraphs 2 and 3; in other words, the relationship between the honors system and equality under the law. I think we can say that behind the honors system is the Japanese attitude that a person's value is determined by his or her proximity to the Emperor, but there are a number of points that interest me concerning the way that the honors system actually operates by giving precedence to government officials over ordinary people; for example, should we approach this as a constitutional issue, or might it be possible to change Japanese attitudes by reforming the honors system itself? Personally, I think it would probably be best to retain the system itself while eliminating all ranks from the decorations.
>> The form of the honors system, in which the awards are granted
by the Emperor, is relevant to the persistent discrimination problem in
this country, and behind this, I suggest, is the Japanese mentality to
which I referred above.
NAKANO Kansei (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In Japan today, power and authority are separated, and the Emperor-as-symbol exists as a figure of authority without power. It is accurate to use the word "symbol," not "representative" or "head of State," and the Emperor system should be maintained in its present form.
>> With regard to acts in matters of state, I believe the wording should be fine-tuned or modified in several places, for example, "general election of members of the Diet" in item 4 of Article 7.
>> With regard to female accession to the throne, I think this is
a matter for the Imperial Household Law [rather than the Constitution],
but we should discuss it not because we are in a panic over the present
lack of a male grandchild in the Imperial line, but from the viewpoint
of how we envision the ideal Imperial system of the future.
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
>> "Emperor-as-symbol" is a wonderful system, the mainstay of Japan, and it should be maintained in the future.
>> According to the Constitution, the source of the Emperor's authority is "the will of the people" (Article 1), but I think we should delve more deeply into the source of the Emperor's authority, together with the reasons why the Emperor-as-symbol system is necessary. Personally, I believe we should make a more explicit statement of the source of the Emperor's authority in the Constitution.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Ideal Government and Organizations,
and free discussion
Local autonomy, with special reference to small local governments
Report by Subcommittee Chairman SUGIURA Seiken
(Main points)
>> When we consider what form should be taken by the basic units of local government, especially small local governments, we note that (a) due to the stringency of regional public finances, the efficiency of government operations must be greatly improved, in part by exploiting economies of scale, and (b) as transportation and information technology develop and people's social and economic activities expand into an ever-wider sphere, the municipalities have come to seem too small. Municipal mergers should therefore be promoted; at the same time, given that the scale and capacities of municipalities are growing as mergers progress, we should also think about the ideal form of the prefectures and of the organization of the national government, allowing for such possibilities as the introduction of a do-shu system.
>> In future, I would like the Subcommittee to consider its vision
for this country in the 21st century from various angles.
Free discussion
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We need to discuss afresh what is meant by "the principle of local autonomy" while bearing in mind the global standards for local autonomy, making reference to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, among other sources.
>> As the Constitution does not specify what "local public entities" are, there is no need for a constitutional amendment in order to introduce a do-shu system. In discussing the introduction of such a system, we should first consider the ideal form of the nation.
>> In the government's own opinion, the executive power of the Cabinet
provided for in Article 65 does not include local executive power, and
therefore there exists a local executive power that cannot be infringed
by the State. This Commission should also clarify the nature of local autonomy.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As we saw during the recount in Florida in the last U.S. presidential
elections, when states have legislative or judicial powers of their own,
depending on what they do with them, major problems can sometimes occur.
We need to take this into account in discussing the introduction of a do-shu
system.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Some local governments are more enthusiastic than others about working toward municipal mergers. This is because a long-term vision for the nation after the mergers is lacking; it is not clear whether the aim is centralization of power or regional sovereignty. It is also a problem that mergers are being promoted under central direction in the absence of a vision for the future.
>> In discussing mergers, we should first discuss "a vision
for the nation." I personally think that, after conducting such a
debate, the best approach would be to introduce a do-shu system with the
aim of regional sovereignty, and then decide the form of the local governments
within each do-shu separately.
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The pros and cons of municipal mergers, a do-shu system, and so on are questions that relate to how we understand "the principle of local autonomy."
>> In thinking about the proper form of municipalities, we ought
not to take the efficiency of government operations and public finances
as our only yardstick. What matters is that, even if a municipality stays
small, its residents maintain and develop a mutual willingness to tackle
the problems that affect them closely. These points should also be taken
into account when a merger is decided on.
BANNO Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the debate on introducing a do-shu system, we need to rethink the fundamental question of the division of roles between the national and local governments from the viewpoint of what we expect of each administrative unit. I think we should introduce a do-shu system, on condition that municipalities throughout the country are reorganized into about 300 cities (with populations of 300,000 to 600,000).
>> In so doing, we should discuss not only mergers but also partitions, in view of the fact that some units of local government, such as the designated cities, are unduly large.
>> The simpler a system is, the better, and so we should also discuss,
among other things, the need to make administrative districts coincide
with electoral districts.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Listening to the informant, Mayor ABE, I felt that in thinking about new community development, (a) enhancing the welfare of residents should be fundamental; (b) residents' wishes should be respected; and (c) it is important to give residents an explanation.
>> We should also hear the views of the National Association of Towns and Villages on the actual situation of small local governments.
>> The substance of "the principle of local autonomy" is clear, as it is concretely embodied in the Local Autonomy Law and other legislation.
>> The European Charter of Local Self-Government was mentioned earlier.
We should continue to discuss local self-government in Europe.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> The shift to larger administrative areas associated with municipal mergers will weaken the direct link between government and residents in the area of welfare and administrative services. It is important to establish local communities to compensate for this loss.
>> In mergers, it is important that the residents' wishes are reflected adequately. Since mergers are being promoted under central direction, the wishes of individual residents are not being reflected well enough, and there is not enough consensus-building among residents. Where important matters such as mergers are concerned, active use should be made of local referendums in order to establish truly participatory self-government by residents.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Guarantee of Fundamental
Human Rights, and free discussion
Fundamental labor rights, from the viewpoints of reform of the public servant
system and gender equality
Report by Subcommittee Chairman OIDE Akira
(Main points)
>> The general view was that there is no particular problem in the Constitution's provisions on equal rights and fundamental labor rights. However, opinion was divided regarding the evaluation of matters that are not provided for in the Constitution, such as "the home" and "the family."
>> With regard to reform of the public servant system, opinion was especially divided on how to evaluate the ILO interim report.
>> With regard to gender equality, there was an exchange of views on what kind of measures would be needed to realize the three recommendations put forward by the informant, Ms. FUJII.
>> It was my sense that, in order to realize the ideals of the Constitution,
in-depth debate is needed on reform of the public servant system (especially
the proper form of labor-management relations for public servants) and
gender equality in the workplace.
Free discussion
TANIMOTO Tatsuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> When we discuss fundamental labor rights from the viewpoint of the reform of the public servant system, we encounter two conflicting principles: (a) on the one hand, from Article 28 we derive the fact that fundamental labor rights are guaranteed for all workers; (b) on the other hand, from Article 41 (the Diet as the sole law-making organ) and Article 83 (fiscal democracy), we derive what is known as "sovereignty theory," which holds that the fundamental labor rights of public servants should be determined by the Diet, which represents the will of the people, and thus there can be no collective bargaining between public servants and the government, as the government does not have the right to decide. I believe that adequate debate on how to strike a balance between these two is necessary.
>> When we discuss fundamental labor rights from the viewpoint of
gender equality, I think we need adequate debate on which should be emphasized
more, "equality of results" or "equality of opportunity."
As an example of "equality of results," some countries have a
quota system in their national assembly reserving a certain number of seats
for women. When too much emphasis is placed on "equality of results,"
however, in the United States, lawsuits have been filed claiming reverse
discrimination caused a violation of "equality of opportunity."
I think we should develop a policy approach based on "equality of
opportunity" while taking some small steps in the direction of "equality
of results."
KONNO Azuma (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Since Article 13 provides for the right to the pursuit of happiness, we must think seriously about discrimination in hiring on grounds that are not listed among those prohibited by the Constitution, such as sex, age, and race. One such example would be gender identity disorder.
>> As Ms. FUJII said in her recommendations, there are limits to
what can be resolved by administrative guidance. I believe that in order
to resolve discrimination against minorities, it is important to establish
a body with the power to issue compulsory relief orders.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Last year, I visited ILO headquarters in Geneva as the shadow Minister for Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications in the Democratic Party of Japan's "next Cabinet," and so I am very familiar with the ILO's stand, which is strongly critical of the Guidelines for Reform of the Public Servant System.
>> I feel that Japan's present system of labor-management relations for public employees is unacceptable by global standards, and there will be trouble if we do not take this opportunity to consider it properly. To borrow the ILO's phrase, this is a "golden opportunity."
>> The proposed reforms of the public servant system aim to introduce
a new personnel system and a merit system, but they also transfer the powers
of the National Personnel Authority to the Cabinet ministers, and since
ministers are generally politicians, I think it is very doubtful whether
the status of public employees as "servants of the whole community"
(Article 15) can be preserved. We should study this issue properly.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> We should pay serious attention to the ILO's assessment that Japan's system of labor-management relations for public employees is lagging behind international standards.
>> States that ratify ILO treaties incur an obligation to conform to international labor standards, and Japan has ratified ILO Treaties Nos. 98 and 87. This is another reason why we should take the ILO's interim report seriously and fulfill our international obligations.
>> The government is not taking the ILO's interim report seriously, and it is that attitude in itself that the international body is calling into question.
>> As the public servant system undergoes reform for the first time
since the war, I think that the restriction of the fundamental labor rights
of public employees is an issue that this Commission also must pursue in
much greater depth.
MIZUSHIMA Hiroko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I think it was generally agreed by the Subcommittee, including the informants, that Japan today has not yet reached the level of gender equality sought by the Constitution.
>> An often-heard comment on working women is "It's fine for women to work, but what about the home? What about the children?" Similarly, in the Subcommittee, there were comments about writing provisions on "the home" and "the family" into the Constitution. However, given that we have ratified the Treaty on the Rights of Children, wouldn't it be better to focus on children's rights rather than belatedly writing "home" and "family" into the Constitution?
>> Today, as the birthrate continues to decline and the population ages, adults are spending less time with children, whether their own or in the community. It should be the role of the Diet to discuss ways of creating a balance between work and home life so that adults will be able to spend time with children.
>> According to the data, it is not simply a matter of saying that the more time a mother spends with her children, the better. Her state of mind while she is with her children is important, and we should think about providing support for that reason.
>> In court cases involving traffic accidents, for example, lost
future earnings are calculated differently for men and women, on the grounds
that there is a gender gap in wages. Is this not a discriminatory practice
prohibited by Article 14?
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> When the proposed reforms of the public servant system were drawn up, I doubt whether there was really a serious debate on what restrictions should be placed on the fundamental labor rights of public employees.
>> To my knowledge, no other industrialized country places as many restrictions as Japan on the fundamental labor rights of its public employees. We should study the systems of other countries thoroughly.
>> The fundamental labor rights guaranteed by Article 28 were won over the course of a long history, and I recognize that even the restrictions that have hitherto been placed on the fundamental labor rights of public employees have a historical background. But we are now in the 21st century, and I question whether we should stay wedded, without even posing any questions, to the ideas of a former age when strikes were common. In my view, we should restore all the fundamental labor rights of public employees. Failing that, we should at least move gradually in that direction.
>> If detailed studies have led to the conclusion that restrictions
on the fundamental labor rights of public employees are necessary, convincing
grounds for that conclusion should be presented. I do not think that such
grounds have been shown as yet.
HIRABAYASHI Kozo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I agree with Mr. TANIMOTO regarding the debate on fundamental labor rights from the viewpoint of the reform of the public servant system.
>> As we pursue the debate in greater depth, we should design a system
for the future, taking the realities fully into account.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> With regard to Mr. TANIMOTO's point about Article 41 being grounds for restricting the fundamental labor rights of public employees, it seems questionable whether "laws subordinate to the Constitution" enacted by the Diet can serve as a justification for restricting fundamental labor rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which is superior to that law.
>> When Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation became NTT, for example, its employees were immediately given the right to strike. Does this not suggest that the same kind of employment relationship as is seen in the private sector could be predicated between public servants and the government? In that case, it seems to me that the "sovereignty theory" does not provide a basis for restricting the fundamental labor rights of public employees.
>> Times have changed since the days of militant labor strikes. We should engage in active dialogue and work to create a good system.
>> With regard to gender equality, the gap between men's and women's wages is seen as too large, but to people in the workplace, it seems only natural because men and women do different work. Whether this is actually true or not, we need to recognize the fact that that is how it appears to people in the workplace.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation, and free discussion
The Constitution and states of emergency, with special reference to responding to natural disasters and related emergencies
Report by Subcommittee Chairman NAKAGAWA Shoichi(Main points)
>> We should give due weight to the critical comments that were made by the informants at the two Subcommittee meetings on "the Constitution and states of emergency," regarding the Diet's responsibility for improving the system of emergency preparedness.
>> There was, I think, a common understanding among all members that
it is the duty of government to protect the life and property of the people
from terrorism and natural disasters. With regard to concrete measures,
some speakers contended that we should stipulate in the Constitution how
the State should exercise its powers and what limits should be imposed
on the rights of the people during a state of emergency, while others argued
that we should endeavor to ensure in the spirit of the Preamble and Article
9 that emergencies should not arise. Given this divergence of views, there
is a need to pursue the debate in greater depth and form a consensus without
delay.
Free discussion (including the Iraq and North Korean questions)
SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I think it is the common understanding of all members that there is a need to consolidate the legislation for states of emergency in Japan.
>> Society today faces a host of risks, such as environmental problems, currency manipulation, and terrorism. I believe that the existing Constitution cannot deal adequately with these risks because: (a) it does not recognize crises that go beyond the limits of ordinary events; (b) it has no provisions for positive action to achieve peace and security in the international community; (c) it does not postulate a crisis occurring in surrounding countries; (d) it does not set out a clear response to natural disasters in urban population centers.
>> The laws providing for emergency situations should be improved,
particularly in light of examples from other countries which show that,
in states of emergency, human rights such as the freedom of behavior may
sometimes be restricted.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We need to put the changes over the five decades since the war into perspective, especially in regard to security issues. Germany and France have fought each other three times in the past 120 years, but since 1987 they have taken a series of steps, such as the creation of the Franco-German Brigade, which are the finest antiwar confidence-building measures that humanity has ever produced. We should examine whether such things are also possible outside of Europe.
>> When Japan joined the United Nations in 1956, there was a debate over whether it could do so without possessing arms, and also a debate over permanent neutrality. However, membership was given priority, and Article 9 may not have been adequately discussed.
>> Japan faces the question of whether it can establish a solid position
in the international community without any involvement in security and
confidence-building. I believe that the time has come to put the five decades
since the war into perspective and formulate a security policy of our own.
NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> As long as we have Article 9, there is nothing we can do. The reason is that when the Constitution was enacted, the United States thought there was no need for Japan to do anything.
>> The most important thing a government can do is creatively and
imaginatively avoid dangers. In an international situation fraught with
dangers such as the North Korean question and the risk of a clash between
the United States and China, we must consider how to secure our own safety,
while recognizing that there is nothing in the existing Constitution that
corresponds to the martial law provisions of the Meiji Constitution.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I previously pointed out that the attack on Iraq is illegal and wrong on the grounds that (a) it violates the UN Charter and international law, as Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 do not provide a legal basis and there has been no new Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force; (b) it bars the way to a peaceful resolution through continued inspections, even though many members of the Security Council believed such a resolution was achievable; (c) it will inflict enormous casualties on the civilian population. These points have since been borne out by events. At present, the question of reconstruction after the attack is being debated, but you cannot reconstruct lost lives. The attack should stop immediately.
>> A preemptive strike or an attack intended to overthrow the Hussein
regime violates the UN Charter and disrupts international order. Japan
should withdraw its support for the United States and call strongly on
Washington to halt the attack on Iraq immediately, based on the constitutional
principles of international cooperation and pacifism.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The present active debate on terrorism and related concerns is prompted by an awareness that the terrorist attacks of September 11 were directed against the whole world, not only the United States. Japan too has experienced terrorist incidents in the past, including the fatal stabbing of Socialist Party Chairman ASANUMA Inejiro and the subway sarin attack by Aum Shinrikyo. As Members of the Diet, we should urgently discuss how to protect the lives and property of the people against terrorism and incidents of that kind.
>> We should keep the debate focused on the essentials and not be preoccupied with facts on the surface, such as the existence of Article 9, or the particulars of the debate in the United Nations, or the destruction caused by the attack on Iraq. With regard to Iraq and North Korea, for example, the debate should take into account the fact that those two nations have acted in ways that could be called "state terrorism" against their own people and the international community.
>> A representative of the Democratic Party of Japan has criticized
the government's response to the Iraq issue, saying that it is merely following
the U.S. line, yet at the same time he said that the United States would
naturally come to Japan's aid in relation to North Korea because of the
Japan-U.S. alliance. This attitude reduces the essence of the alliance
to a mere scrap of paper. The Japan-U.S. alliance will not function as
a guarantee of security in Northeast Asia unless both partners commit all
the wisdom they possess and even their lives to its protection.
SUGIURA Seiken (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution of Japan contains no provisions on powers during a crisis. I believe that we should explicitly provide a basis in the Constitution for powers to deal with a critical situation, like the martial law provided for in Article 14 of the Meiji Constitution.
>> A special law concerning postwar reconstruction in Iraq is being
considered, but instead of dealing with each new situation on an ad hoc
basis, we should provide clear constitutional authority for Japan to cooperate
in situations where the use of armed force, maintenance of law and order,
peacekeeping operations and so on are based on UN resolutions.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> In addressing the issue of Iraq, we should make pacifist principles and UN-centered international cooperation the foundation of our response. Japan should have clearly stated that it cannot support the United States. In resolving the North Korean situation, also, the United Nations should play the central role, not the Japan-U.S. alliance as Prime Minister KOIZUMI has suggested.
>> A preemptive strike has been launched according to the Bush doctrine, but the war should be ended as soon as possible and a peaceful solution should be sought within the UN framework, because (a) the attack on Iraq does not fit either of the exceptional cases in which the use of force may be authorized under the UN Charter, since Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 are not a basis for armed attack, and it is the Security Council, not the United States, that must determine whether a resolution has been breached; and (b) if the purpose of the attack is to overthrow the Hussein regime, it is an interference in domestic affairs.
>> The U.S.-U.K. forces have reportedly used depleted uranium shells
again in the attack on Iraq. This is a deplorable use of radioactive weapons
which cannot be condoned on humanitarian grounds.
KONNO Azuma (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan's support for the attack on Iraq is a major departure from UN-centered principles. Japan should engage in diplomacy while firmly upholding its principles, including the centrality of the United Nations.
>> The government cites Security Council Resolutions 1441, 687, and 678 as legal justification for the attack on Iraq, but none of these resolutions serves as a legal basis. In particular, Resolution 1441 was part of a process of deciding how to deal with Iraq, and it specified clearly that the final decision was to be made by the Security Council. It is a grave error to support the attack on Iraq, which was launched without a Security Council decision.
>> In thinking about U.S. cooperation on the North Korean issue,
we need to bear in mind that (a) the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is reciprocal
and serves America's national interests as well as Japan's; and (b) U.S.
forces have been permitted to use military bases in Japan in order to contribute
to our security and to the maintenance of peace and security in the Far
East. If we take these facts into account, there is no need for Japan to
align its foreign policy with the United States out of concern for the
North Korean problem.
OHATA Akihiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi commented that the statement by DPJ president Mr. KAN takes the alliance relationship too lightly. But France is also an American ally, and yet it has stated clearly that it does not support the attack on Iraq. There is nothing that says that because we are allies we must support Washington.
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI has said that Japan must cooperate with the United States because it does not possess nuclear weapons. If that were true, we would be forced to follow the United States on economic issues, food issues, and so forth, in which case both the Constitution and the UN Charter would be meaningless.
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI is widely regarded as having abandoned pacifist and UN-centered principles in supporting the attack on Iraq. I believe that reverting to the UN-centered policy is indispensable to the maintenance of international order in future. I would like to ask Chairman NAKAYAMA to work actively to ensure that the Security Council meets again and a UN-centered international order is restored.
> NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman of the Commission
>> Under its policy of the centrality of the United Nations, Japan has long used that forum to call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and so on, but no one has listened. I believe that Japan should continue to advocate its own position while making it clear that it pays approximately 20 percent of the United Nations' costs.
>NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Mr. OHATA has pointed out that France, which is an American ally, has stated clearly that it does not support the attack on Iraq. It is only natural for an independent nation to put its own interests first. At the same time, as developed nations, France, the United States, and Japan, among others, bear a heavy responsibility for world peace and prosperity.
>> In my view, alliances such as the one between the United States
and Japan are not just a matter of assuming obligations on paper. They
become meaningful only when the partners work to give them actual substance.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I believe that in its relationship with the United States, in
future Japan must raise the issues that need to be raised. In particular,
since it would be extremely dangerous for Japan to become involved in the
American preemptive strike strategy, we should appeal strongly to Washington
to stop pursuing this strategy. Japan should continue to espouse pacifist
principles.
SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi pointed out that DPJ president Mr. KAN commented to the effect that we should depend on the United States with regard to North Korea while condemning the unilateralist action of the United States in Iraq, but I question whether that is true. Are not partisan comments out of place during the debate in this Commission, which is supposed to be conducting suprapartisan research on the Constitution?
>> The Democratic Party of Japan advocates a peaceful solution to the Iraq question through diplomatic negotiations in a context of international cooperation, without resorting to the use of force. We also believe that a similar approach should be taken to the North Korean question.
>> North Korea is suspected of having nuclear weapons. Japan should
put the spirit of the Constitution into practice in handling this problem.
In a world in which many countries have nuclear weapons, Japan is the only
country to have suffered nuclear attack; moreover, it has never been an
arms exporter. Accordingly, Japan should speak for the world, stressing
that the possession of nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction
has a negative effect on world peace. With regard to Iraq, we should work
to end the war and return the question to the UN framework without delay.
SHIMA Satoshi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In discussing the principle of the centrality of the United Nations, we need to be clear about the course of events including the process which led to the enactment of the Constitution, Japan's accession to the United Nations, the creation of the Self-Defense Forces, and the conclusion of the Security Treaty.
>> The ruling parties, in their capacity as the government, have recognized the U.S. position with regard to the attack on Iraq. Meanwhile, we of the Democratic Party of Japan, in our capacity as lawmakers, are debating the issue from a legal perspective. It is questionable whether the current government position can be called correct as Japan's foreign policy.
>> If the Cabinet Legislation Bureau's interpretations of the Constitution are no longer in keeping with the realities, can't this Commission tell the government to change its opinion?
>> In the event of military action against North Korea based on Article 42 of the UN Charter after passage of a Security Council resolution, the question for Japan would be what to do in relation to its obligation to observe international law under Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. There are two opposing theories on the relationship between international law and the Constitution, one giving precedence to the Constitution and the other to international law. I believe that the Commission should at least regard the two as being of equal standing, but I would like to ask the opinion of Chairman NAKAYAMA.
> NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman
>> I think that the Constitution takes precedence over international
law, insofar as Article 99 imposes the obligation to respect and uphold
the Constitution on the "Emperor or the Regent as well as Ministers
of State, members of the Diet, judges, and all other public officials,"
and Article 98, Paragraph 2 stipulates the obligation to observe international
law. I would like to see a vigorous debate in the Diet on what Japan should
do if a situation arose involving surrounding countries and the United
Nations passed a resolution to address it, and I think such a debate is
also desirable from the public's viewpoint.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> One problem with the war in Iraq is that it started with a preemptive attack, which is prohibited by the UN Charter and the Constitution of Japan. This shatters a principle which the world community had developed over many years, namely, not allowing preemptive strikes. Also, the civilian populace is being harmed. I cannot accept America's stance of being prepared to use weapons of mass destruction itself, even as it professes the goal of eliminating such weapons.
>> Article 9 is a clause that can actively contribute to international peace, and Japan, as a country that possesses a peace constitution, should work to bring the war to an immediate end and seek a peaceful solution through diplomacy.
>> In connection with Mr. TANIKAWA's comment, I would like to add
that when Japan joined the United Nations, given the problematic nature
of participation in a UN force, it declared in advance that it was under
certain constraints due to Article 9.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In thinking about the ideal form of the United Nations, we should bear in mind that (a) the United Nations did not function during the Cold War, largely because the rival powers used their vetoes, and it began to function only after the collapse of the Soviet Union; (b) as seen in the example of the Kosovo conflict, together with maintaining international peace, each nation takes the protection of its own national interests as its basic stance.
>> In our debate, we should regard the sense of crisis felt in the United States since September 11 as a sense of crisis felt by the whole world.
>> One of the informants, Mr. OGAWA, recommended that the "state of unconstitutionality" should be rectified and the Constitution should be revised to make it more complete. Japan should fulfill its responsibilities as an economic power while respecting the United Nations.
(Referring to a comment by Ms. MIZUSHIMA on a topic discussed at the Subcommittee
on Guarantee of Fundamental Human Rights)
>> A previous speaker commented that there is no need to make provision
in the Constitution for the importance of the family and the home because
we have ratified the Treaty on the Rights of Children. However, in light
of the reality of child abuse, I believe that clearly stating the importance
of the family and the home in the Constitution is important to Japan's
future, and that it does not contradict equal rights for men and women
in any way.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> The current situation is a question of vital interest to humanity, the world community, and the Japanese. While I am not entirely unsympathetic to the opposition parties' tendency to discuss the way things should be, we in the ruling parties have no choice but to consider the situation in terms of international political realism. I think that the attack on Iraq falls in a "gray zone" where one can neither approve nor disapprove of it completely.
>> According to Justice Ministry figures, there have been over 380 important acts of international terrorism, both large and small, in the three decades since the 1970s. While UN-centered peace diplomacy should be respected to the utmost, it is also possible that international law has not caught up with this reality.
>> In 1981, after an intense debate, the Komeito changed its position
that the Self-Defense Forces were unconstitutional and recognized them
for the protection of Japanese territory. Taking into account the present
situation in Northeast Asia, does each party regard the existing Constitution
as permitting war for self-defense? If not, how do they intend to defend
Japan?
KITAGAWA Renko (Social Democratic Party)
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI takes the position that Japan has no option but to support the United States in its attack on Iraq, but what concrete efforts did the government make to avoid war? Japan is no longer in a position to propose a cease-fire.
>> In the matter of suspected nuclear weapons, I think that Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are more of a problem than Iraq, but countries such as these that are suspected of having nuclear programs will probably not cooperate with inspections in future if they are going to be attacked regardless of the outcome, as in the present case, and this will probably also impair the workings of the United Nations.
>> Even as it supports the destruction carried out by the United States, Japan has said it will provide reconstruction assistance, but to the younger generation, the coming generation, this does not make sense. War is the leading cause of destruction of the environment.
>> Different branches of the government are behaving inconsistently.
For example, Prime Minister KOIZUMI has said that Japan will protect refugees,
yet the Justice Ministry has ignored the wishes of Afghani applicants for
asylum and forcibly repatriated them.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I would like to add to my opening comment about "permanent neutrality" and say that simply being unarmed does not make one neutral. Neutrality requires a separate policy.