Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation (Fourth Meeting)

Thursday, May 8, 2003

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning security and international cooperation (international organizations and the Constitution - in the fields of security and international cooperation)

After statements were heard from Dr. SUGANAMI Shigeru and Mr. SATO Yukio concerning the above matters, questions were put to them; this was followed by discussion among the members.

Informants:

Members who put questions to Dr. SUGANAMI and Mr. SATO.

Main points of Dr. SUGANAMI's statement

1. International cooperation and the era of pacifism, cooperative internationalism and the public interest - from the NGOs' viewpoint

>> NGOs may be considered as "pacifist" in as much as they conduct activities toward realizing peace, on their own judgment, accepting the risks involved.

>> A nation's cooperative internationalism may be considered as successful when it has realized the three points of (a) not being hated (not conducting war), (b) being appreciated (providing financial aid), and (c) not being held in contempt (sending a message), but Japan has failed to sufficiently realize point (c). Forming ties with "people of the Book" (monotheists) will be indispensable to achieve thorough cooperative internationalism, and we must recognize the importance of consistency between our words and our actions to achieve this, or we will be misunderstood.

>> The concept of the "national interest" is causing institutional fatigue as (a) the principle of self-determination, whereby the nation is formed by the majority ethnic group, is being checked by demands to respect the human rights of minority groups, and (b) thought is shifting from the "positive list" to the "negative list" in this time of rapid change. We are now entering an era where the national interest will be secured via the new concept of the public interest. In this transformation, linkages between NGOs, which act based on the "negative list," and government organizations, which act based on the "positive list," will provide the foundation for realizing the "public interest."

2. Human security and citizen participation humanitarian aid diplomacy

>> We should hold up "human security" as a keyword to facilitate dialogue with "people of the Book," and then develop citizen participation humanitarian aid diplomacy under this.

>> Based on this concept, AMDA is developing "Peace Building through Health" (providing international medical assistance from a neutral humanitarian position to all parties to conflicts, and attempting to contribute to the peace process by working to ease conflicts). The three conditions required to realize this type of "Peace Building through Health" are (a) a common recognition of the universality of life, (b) trust in AMDA, and (c) expectations of Japan.

3. The definition of terrorism

>> Actions are being taken to respond to "terrorism" without first clearly defining this term. While terrorism may be considered as "sending a message via murder," we cannot prepare countermeasures to terrorism without analyzing this message.

4. Conclusions

>> Following the international community principle that "the one who pays the money has the right to give orders," the Japanese government should improve the systems infrastructure for NGOs, which act based on the negative list, and appeal to the world through a stance of pursuing human security via citizen participation diplomacy. This will enable Japan to enhance its presence and influence in the international community.

>> As a nation with (a) abundant water, which is essential for life, (b) the longest average life expectancy in the world, and (c) laws prohibiting the export of weapons, and as one of the few nations on earth that has achieved human security, Japan has the credentials to appeal to the international community for efforts to realize human security worldwide.

>> Amid the dramatic changes of the 21st century, Japan can advocate human security, build up better coordination between the government and NGOs, create the required systems, and thus manifest initiative in a diverse society.

Main points of Mr. SATO's statement

1. The UN is incomplete - gap between reality and the Japanese image of the UN

>> There is a gap between the image of the UN held in Japan and the actual situation. The reality is that the UN is an organization that has begun to change, yet remains incomplete in as much as: (a) there are no UN Standby Forces; (b) the Security Council is tightly controlled by the victors of World War II; and (c) the majority of the UN budgetary burden is borne by a handful of industrialized nations.

2. The three faces of the UN

[1] The Secretary-General (UN Secretariat and Organs)

>> The Secretariat, led by the Secretary-General, plays a great role in the fields of (a) pursuing the goals of the UN Charter and setting the issues of the international community, (b) preventing and resolving conflicts, and (c) preventing the recurrence of conflicts and promoting restoration and reconstruction efforts.

>> Regarding cooperation with the Secretary-General, Japan already provides sufficient financial support. Japan must now expand its personnel contributions of PKO staff (civilian police, judicial officials, etc.) and of Japanese UN staff.

[2] The General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (the Trusteeship Council)

>> The General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council are organs that work toward building consensus on key issues for the international community such as the environment, poverty, and women's issues, but the resolutions reached by these bodies are non-binding recommendations.

>> Japan has a large voice in these bodies, but efforts are needed to make Japan's voice more influential.

[3] The Security Council

>> The Security Council can issue binding decisions on international peace and security. The permanent members of the Security Council have a veto right, which provides them with great power, while the non-permanent members have only limited authority. Moreover, nations that are not serving on the Security Council have virtually no voice there, with special exceptions such as those in the core group for East Timor or the Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan.

>> For example, if the North Korea issue were referred to the Security Council, the decisions reached might not incorporate Japan's opinions because Japan is not a member of the Security Council. Considering this, on issues concerning Japan's security, it would be questionable to view the Council as all-powerful or entrust all items to it.

3. Three issues for Security Council reform

>> Aside from the question of whether or not Japan should, for the purpose of making the UN more functional, take the lead in the Security Council reform such as expanding the range of the Security Council, selecting new permanent members, and reviewing the exercise of veto rights because, among other reasons, (a) the present situation whereby the victors of World War II control the Council is unacceptable, (b) Japan is viewed as a nation that should become a permanent member as a matter of course, and (c) Japan has the ability to persuade the U.S.

4. Recommendations

>> Japan should emphasize the UN and strive to improve it because there is no other body that could take its place as an international organ for peace and security.

>> The Research Commission on the Constitution should dispatch a study mission to the UN to survey its actual situation.


Main points of questions and comments to Dr. SUGANAMI and Mr. SATO

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To both Informants)

>> I think the kidnapping of Japanese nationals by North Korea is terrorism. Do you agree?

(To Mr. SATO)

>> I would like to ask why the UN Charter still includes the so-called enemy state clauses, and about the background to the adoption of these clauses.


KUWABARA Yutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To Mr. SATO)

>> I would like to ask your opinion on two aspects of having Japan become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. (a) If Japan becomes a permanent member, will Japan then be pressed to make military contributions that would pose a problem by conflicting with the Constitution of Japan? (b) What do you think about the comments that even if Japan becomes a permanent member, it would merely be the addition of a follower of the U.S. party line?

>> I think that in aiming at becoming a permanent member of the Security Council, Japan needs to clarify its position on exactly how the UN should be reformed. Do you think that Japan has made this kind of preparation?


ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)

(To Mr. SATO)

>> The U.S. has adopted the position that it holds sole power, protects world peace, and leads the world, and is pushing the nations of the world to choose between supporting the U.S. or not. What will the relationship between the U.S. and the UN be if this policy results in a situation whereby the UN comes to preserve the peace in name alone, with the U.S. as the only body that guarantees peace in real terms?

(To Dr. SUGANAMI)

>> You noted the importance of thinking about the types of messages being expressed by terrorist acts. What type of message do you think the 9/11 terrorists were conveying in their attack on the U.S.?

>> I think it will prove impossible to eliminate terrorism through armed force. You pointed out that reading the message in terrorism can lead to its elimination. What, specifically, do you think should be done in response to terrorism?

(To both Informants)

>> What do you think is the context that breeds terrorism?


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

(To Dr. SUGANAMI)

>> In providing humanitarian aid and other assistance, it is difficult to determine the respective roles that should be played by the government and the NGOs. What is your opinion about this division of labor considering the importance of NGOs and the limitations on the government's role?

(To Mr. SATO)

>> It seems that you have an optimistic outlook for the future of the UN, but I think that although the UN appeared to have functioned during the Gulf War, it has failed to function with the current Iraq problem, and that a fissure has therefore emerged between the UN and the U.S. Do you think the world is headed toward a U.S.-centered order or a UN-centered order? Also, while Japan has emphasized the U.S. in its diplomatic policy, the nation is also championing the cause of a UN-centered order. Which direction do you think Japan should take from now on?

>> While Japan continues to finance about 20% of the UN budget, Security Council reform and other UN reforms advocated by Japan have made no progress at all. As a nation that makes such large contributions, I think Japan should push forward highly visible negotiations on UN reform, including a review of the various nations' payments. Do you agree?


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Dr. SUGANAMI)

>> The U.S. responded to the 9/11 terrorism with military force. As an advocate of "Peace Building through Health," how do you evaluate the U.S. response? Also what type of on-site problems have you experienced as a result of this response by military force?

(To Mr. SATO)

>> As demonstrated by the U.S. response to Iraq, the present U.S. government position is to use the UN when America benefits from doing so, and to ignore the UN when following UN policy conflicts with America's national interests. What is your opinion about this type of behavior?

>> Some say that the UN is powerless in regard to the Iraq issue, but I think we should rather focus on how the UN functioned in supporting public debate through the process of seeking a peaceful solution by continuing with the inspections. I think focusing on this point brings new light to the debate on the functionality of the UN. What is your opinion?


KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

(To Dr. SUGANAMI)

>> I understand that AMDA is conducting activities in Afghanistan. Could you tell us what kind of support you think is necessary from the Japanese government for your activities there?

(To Mr. SATO)

>> Japan has a special position among UN members because Japan (a) has a peace constitution, and (b) is the only nation to have suffered from the wartime use of nuclear weapons. To what extent do the other UN members understand Japan's peace constitution? Also, in light of this special position, I think that Japan should appeal for nuclear disarmament within the UN and actively lobby the U.S. to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Do you agree?

>> The UN is changing, as demonstrated by the major role played by the so-called "neutral countries" in the Iraq issue. I think these ongoing changes should be praised. What is your opinion?


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

(To Mr. SATO)

>> While there are calls for reform of the Security Council, it is unimaginable that the existing permanent members would give up their vested rights, so expanding the number of permanent members seems to be the only realistic approach. So, what are the conditions for nations to become new permanent members?

>> One reason why Japan's reputation among the international community in the peace and security field is not that high is that there are problems with Japan's national security system. Defending one's own nation by oneself is viewed by the world as common sense, and so first of all I think Japan needs to make preparations for that. What is your opinion about this?


TANIMOTO Tatsuya (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. SATO)

>> The Japanese people have an image of the UN as an open and fair institution, but as demonstrated by the Iraq debate the reality is that the UN is where divergent national interests collide. This implies a moral hazard whereby nations would feel free not to follow UN resolutions, as long as they align their interests with those of one of the permanent members of the Security Council. How should we look at UN reform in light of this? Also, do you agree that more efforts should be made to inform the Japanese public about the actual situation of the UN?

>> How do you think the Security Council should function if the veto right is abolished?


SUTO Nobuhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To Mr. SATO)

>> The discussions of UN reform have been advancing, not only concerning Security Council reform but also regarding such issues as UN interference in national matters. Amid this, there has been a proposal to adopt a bicameral UN system and to have one house composed of regional and city delegates. In light of such proposals, what is your view of the ideal direction for UN reform?

(To Dr. SUGANAMI)

>> Article 89 of the Constitution of Japan stipulates that no public money shall be used for any enterprise not under the control of public authority, and in some aspects this is hindering the development of civil society organizations. What is your opinion regarding the relationship between NGOs and the government? Also, what form do you think that NGOs should take as a non-state system?


SHIMOJI Mikio (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. SATO)

>> I previously felt that the role of the UN should be stipulated in the Constitution of Japan, but I became skeptical of the UN after personally visiting the Kurdish autonomous zone of Iraq and seeing with my own eyes how the UN oil for food program was destroying the local agricultural production and forcing the citizens into dependence on the Saddam Hussein regime. What is your opinion about this?

(To Dr. SUGANAMI)

>> There are concerns that NGOs may lose their independence when they receive funding for their activities from the government. In your opinion, what kind of relationship should NGOs and the government share so that NGOs can remain independent of the government while receiving government funding?


NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman

(To Mr. SATO)

>> Japan has enacted Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law and other legislation by maintaining the Constitution as the basis but expanding the interpretation of the Constitution as necessary. As a former Ambassador to the UN who has witnessed diplomatic maneuvering around the world, what do you think about this type of national policy?

>> What is your opinion about forming a regional security framework in Northeast Asia, similar to the framework that has been built up in Europe?

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

NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> I think that if the UN ceases functioning during the 21st century, this will be caused by a confrontation between the two permanent Security Council members the U.S. and China.

>> When we examine incorporating collective security into a new constitution, I think we need to look at the fact that while regional security systems such as NATO and the OAS are common worldwide, because of the presence of China there is no analogous regional framework in Asia, but rather a series of bilateral security frameworks such as those between the U.S. and Japan, and between the U.S. and South Korea.


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I think that all reforms of the UN must be consistent with realizing the spirit of the UN Charter. And in making such reforms, we should note how the UN member states played great roles in the Iraq issue through public discussion and within the Security Council.

>> To gain credibility and persuasiveness in the international community, Japan must free itself from the policy of just following the U.S. line.

>> Japan should follow the path of peace diplomacy. Japan should take a cautious stance toward becoming a permanent member of the Security Council (a) considering the pledge Japan made upon becoming a UN member that it would only contribute to the UN within the framework permitted by the Constitution of Japan, and (b) because Article 47 of the UN Charter states that the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council shall serve on a Military Staff Committee, and this would be in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan.


KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)

>> From now on, indeed it is the UN that should play the central role in maintaining international peace and order, and Japan should take the initiative in reforming the UN toward these ends.

>> Japanese discussions of personnel contributions always start with debates regarding dispatching SDF troops, and I think that is odd. A nation like ours with a peace constitution should play a more diverse role, and we should consider personnel contributions aside from SDF troops.


NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Dr. SUGANAMI made a distinction between the North Korean kidnappings and terrorism, but I think that these kidnappings are none other than state-sponsored terrorism.

>> The recent U.S. attacks on Iraq were simply the consequence of the terrorist state Iraq's persistent refusal to cooperate with the UN for 12 years. Mr. HARUNA depicted Japan's support for the U.S. attacks as blindly following U.S. policy, but I fully agree with Mr. SATO's comment on the difference between dialogue and subservience. I say that Japan announced support for the U.S. in this case based on a judgment that this was in our own national interest.

>> It is correct to think that the people of the world love peace, but we must remember that conflicts may arise regarding the methods to be used, adopt a realistic foreign policy, and consider what we can do for both Japan and the world.


NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> When considering Japan's national security policies, we must consider the possibility that the permanent members of the Security Council may come into conflict and that the UN may cease to function.


SENGOKU Yoshito, Deputy Chairman of the Commission

>> Mr. SATO made a comment implying that rather than being a venue for the pursuit of high ideals, the UN is a place where the national interests of the permanent members of the Security Council come into conflict, and Mr. SATO said we should recognize that. However, rather than belittling the UN in this fashion, I think we must work to enhance the functions of the UN in accordance with international law, from the standpoint of the UN's role in enforcing the rule of law throughout the international community.

>> While it is only natural for a state to pursue its own national interests, such actions should not be shortsighted, or ones that will be shown to have been in error over the middle to long term. In this sense, we need to consider the future of Japan from such perspectives as human security and the benefits to global citizens (the public interest).

>> Some scholars state that implementing Security Council and other UN resolutions is not permissible under the Constitution of Japan, but I think they are examining these issues from a different dimension.