Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation (Fifth Meeting)

Thursday, July 3, 2003

Meeting Agenda

Matters concerning security and international cooperation (Article 9 of the Constitution [renunciation of war, nonmaintenance of war potential, and nonrecognition of the right of belligerency]; constitutional issues surrounding overseas dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces)

After keynote statements concerning the above matters were heard from Subcommittee members KONDO Motohiko and FUJII Hirohisa, questions were put to them, together with comments; this was followed by discussion among the members.

Keynote speakers

Members who put questions or made comments

Main points of the keynote statement by Mr. KONDO

1. Recognition of the current international situation and evaluation of the existing Constitution

>> As the existing Constitution was enacted under the Occupation with the international situation at that time as its premise, it can hardly be expected to cope with the changes occurring in the international situation today, since problems have emerged that cannot be fully understood in terms of the thinking of that era.

>> As a result of repeated revisions by means of interpretation, a distinct gap has developed between what the Constitution says and how it is interpreted and applied; this situation is problematic when viewed in light of the principle of the rule of law. Consequently, we should include the possibility of revising the Constitution in our field of view as we consider how to consolidate a defense system and pursue international contributions.

2. The need to improve the defense system, and revision of the Constitution

>> As it is the duty of government to protect the sovereignty of the nation and the lives and property of the people, it is only natural to have a defense system in place in case of emergency. On that understanding, we should make explicit provision in the Constitution for Japan's right of self-defense and the existence of the Self-Defense Forces, together with related matters.

>> We should establish articles in the Constitution stipulating the response to emergency situations such as invasion or major natural disasters. In doing so, it will be necessary to give the Diet and other bodies sufficient control to prevent any abuse of the Prime Minister's or other officials' powers. However, the system will have to, in order to restrict the discretion of the Prime Minister and other officials, ensure that the interests of the people are not jeopardized.

>> The Japan-U.S. alliance should be developed as an axis of security in Japan and ultimately the broader Asian region. However, we must make the bilateral relationship a reciprocal partnership of equals by allowing Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense.

>> As we consolidate a defense system, we should also endeavor to build a relationship of trust with our neighbors in the region.

3. The need to promote an international contribution, and revision of the Constitution

>> The typical modern conflict, often rooted in poverty, does not fit into a framework of sovereign states. Accordingly, Japan must adopt the stance that peace and security can, in the last resort, be guaranteed by force of arms, and on that basis it must show an active willingness to participate in efforts to maintain international peace and security, offering as a future-oriented and enduring form of pacifism the approach of "human security from a humanitarian perspective," which focuses on the security of individual human beings.

>> If we are to put an international contribution of this kind into practice, revision of Article 9 will be unavoidable.

4. Some recommendations for revision of the Constitution

>> For the above reasons, I recommend that Article 9 be revised in the following main ways: [1] While firmly upholding the ideals of paragraph 1, which renounces wars of aggression, the approach of "human security from a humanitarian perspective" should be embodied in concrete terms, to enable Japan to play an active part in maintaining international peace. [2] Paragraph 2 should be deleted, and the rights of individual and collective self-defense and the existence of the Self-Defense Forces should then be clearly stipulated. [3] Provisions should be established to lay down the conditions, procedures, and related matters for declaring a state of emergency.

>> In future, we should pursue an in-depth debate directed toward enacting a Constitution for the people, a Constitution suited to the twenty-first century. At the same time, we should put in place a Law Concerning a National Referendum on Revision of the Constitution and other necessary measures.

Main points of the keynote statement by Mr. FUJII

1. The need to stipulate the basic principles of security in the Constitution

>> In 2002 and 2003, the Liberal Party submitted a bill for a Basic Law on Security, in accordance with the basic security guidelines in the Party's "Basic Policy for Creating a New Constitution." I think that the basis for establishing peace for the nation should be presented to the public by stating it clearly in the Constitution, or at least by enacting a Basic Law on Security, and I also think that there is a need to gain the trust of the international community, especially our neighboring countries, in this regard.

2. The Liberal Party's basic principles of security

>> The Liberal Party advocates three basic principles of security: [1] establishing clearly that Japan possesses the right of self-defense, and exercising that right with restraint; [2] placing importance on the Japan-U.S. joint defense structure; [3] playing a role in the UN-centered maintenance of international order.

>> The wording of Article 9 is difficult to understand, and it is not natural Japanese. Moreover, the existing Constitution contains no provisions on the right of self-defense. Therefore, we should clearly state that force can be used in self-defense, within the minimum necessary limits, as a last resort in the event of a direct invasion or when there is a risk of invasion if no action is taken. This would clearly establish both that we possess the right of self-defense and that we will exercise it with restraint. Also, in view of the importance of civilian control, the Prime Minister's right of command and supervision over the Self-Defense Forces should be stipulated in the Constitution rather than in the Self-Defense Forces Law.

>> The Japan-U.S. alliance became the basis of Japan's postwar recovery and prosperity. The right of collective self-defense was discussed when the Security Treaty was revised, and the government issued the interpretation that Japan possesses but cannot exercise this right. However, this is not consistent with the internationally accepted view that the rights of individual and collective self-defense form an integral whole. In line with this internationally accepted view, the Liberal Party takes the position that Japan can exercise the right of self-defense, including collective self-defense, but that it should do so with restraint. This same doctrine forms the basis on which the Far East clause was included in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Further, it should be noted that collective security and the right of collective self-defense are qualitatively different: the former is a restriction of sovereignty, while the latter is actually an exercise of sovereignty.

>> Peace operations (international security) headed by the United Nations form the basis of Japan's and the world's security, and Japan should therefore participate actively in UN or multinational forces, peacekeeping activities, and similar operations when authorized by a UN resolution; indeed, it could be said to be our duty as a UN member to do so. To make this clear, we should make explicit provision in the Constitution for participation in UN peace operations. The substance of peacekeeping operations, in particular, has changed in recent years, and they now may involve heavy arms or coercive enforcement, but Japan should play an active role in these operations while seeking to realize peacekeeping operations in their true form, which is noncoercive, neutral, and international. In the process, we should, of course, bring our criteria for weapons use into line with international standards.

Main questions and comments

TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. FUJII)

>> The Japanese government interprets the right of collective self-defense as the right to use force to prevent an armed attack on a nation with which one's own nation has a close relationship, "even though one's own nation is not being attacked directly." Strictly speaking, however, whether one's own nation is being attacked directly is not relevant to the right of collective self-defense. Do you think that the government interpretation should be changed, or do you think that this interpretation should be stated explicitly in the Constitution?

>> Regarding the principle of the centrality of the United Nations, the permanent members of the Security Council often exercise their vetoes according to their own national interests, and unless there is a reform of the Security Council's system and practices, including the veto, I do not think that it is the right course for a nation to entrust everything to the United Nations. What are your views on this point?

>> I believe that, in the area of security, Japan is a "semi-sovereign nation." Do you agree?

> FUJII Hirohisa (Liberal Party)

>> Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, for example, differs from the Japanese government's interpretation in stating that "an armed attack against one or more [member nations] shall be considered an attack against them all," and I think that this is the correct interpretation of the right of collective self-defense. However, whether the right is individual or collective, it must be exercised with restraint. A collective security structure, on the other hand, involves ceding some degree of sovereignty based on a UN resolution, and this is an entirely different matter from the right of collective self-defense, which is an exercise of sovereignty.

>> In the view of some people, the United Nations is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, but that must not be allowed to happen. I think that efforts should be made at every opportunity to review the present structure of the United Nations, including the power of veto, and that we should also make explicit provision in the Constitution with regard to UN peace operations.

>> Mr. TANIKAWA described Japan as a "semi-sovereign nation," but there is nothing in the Constitution of Japan that says we will defend our nation ourselves. In a new Constitution, we should clearly state that it is our noble mission and duty to defend our nation ourselves.


KONNO Azuma (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To both speakers)

>> The Special Measures Bill for Iraq was approved by a Lower House committee, and the government has explained that it does not violate the Constitution because the Self-Defense Forces will be operating in noncombat areas, despite the fact that, amid continued fighting, there are no noncombat areas. What do you think of this labored interpretation of Article 9, and of the U.S. pressure that led to it?

(Comments)

>> The present U.S. administration, with its affinity for Hobbes' "tyranny of the majority," is incompatible with the ideals of the Constitution of Japan, which aspire to permanent peace and are founded on the principle of international cooperation. I believe that it is contrary to Japan's national interests to uncritically follow U.S. strategy and be co-opted into it. Japan should act independently, based on the ideals of the Constitution.

>> With regard to the case for revising Article 9, I believe that the time has come to ask the public whether Japan should become a country that makes war.

> KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> I believe that we should revise Article 9 so that labored interpretations will no longer be necessary. Also, as I understand the situation, many countries are already helping to rebuild Iraq, and the bill is intended to fill needs that are not being met by dispatching the Self-Defense Forces, which have self-contained capabilities. Further, the fact-finding mission sent by the ruling parties has reported that noncombat areas do exist.

> FUJII Hirohisa (Liberal Party)

>> In my view, there is no problem whatsoever in taking part in peacekeeping or similar operations whose mission is to maintain order, provided there is a UN resolution. Also, it would be untrue to say that there has been no U.S. pressure with regard to the Iraq question. However, we should not link the fact of U.S. pressure over the Iraq issue to the Japan-U.S. security structure.


ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)

(To Mr. FUJII)

>> In your statement, I understood you to say that we should clearly stipulate our relationship with the United Nations in the Constitution, but do you envisage adding a third paragraph to Article 9? If so, would paragraphs 1 and 2 remain as they are now?

>> Although the Constitution of Japan does not address collective security directly, I do not see any need to revise the Constitution in order to participate in collective security, because such participation is in fact consistent with the intent of the Preamble. What is your view in this regard?

(To Mr. KONDO)

>> In your statement, you mentioned "human security," which is related to developments at the United Nations, but you did not mention the United Nations' role and related aspects. What are your views on the relationship between Article 9 and the United Nations, including the question of whether we should establish explicit provisions concerning the United Nations in the Constitution?

>> What are your views on the limits and the ideal form of the right of collective self-defense?

> FUJII Hirohisa (Liberal Party)

>> Not only Article 9 but the entire text of the Constitution is difficult to understand, being written in "translationese" rather than Japanese, and I think that we should rewrite it in language that even a junior high school student can understand. Also, while the right of self-defense involves the exercise of national sovereignty, UN peace operations limit national sovereignty, and I think that we should deal with these two matters in separate articles because they are different in nature.

>> The Preamble of the Constitution specifies only the basic ideal of international cooperation. Taken on its own, this is an abstraction, and there is a need for additional, more concrete provisions for participation in collective security.

> KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The Commission on Human Security has made a proposal that goes a step further than the United Nations, advocating the need for a strategy that comprehensively encompasses the political, military, and other aspects. Accordingly, I think that we should take the approach of "human security from a humanitarian perspective" as our ideal in carrying out our international contribution, viewing it as a future-oriented and enduring form of pacifism.

>> We should delete paragraph 2 of Article 9 and create an explicit provision that would enable Japan to exercise the right of self-defense, be it individual or collective. Also, the response to military emergencies should not be determined solely in terms of the right of collective self-defense; we should also take the international consensus into consideration.


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Mr. FUJII)

>> I am very dubious about Japan's present uncritical adherence to a U.S. strategy that is being criticized as unilateralist. What is your view on this point?

(To Mr. KONDO)

>> You said that a gap has developed between the ideals of the Constitution and its actual application, through repeated revisions of interpretation by the government. Do you view the way that the government has dealt with this question in the past as unconstitutional?

>> Why is it that the alternative of closing the gap by bringing the reality closer to the ideals of the Constitution is never presented?

>> The ideals of Article 9, which states that Japan will not use force or possess war potential, were influenced by a worldwide trend toward pacifism, as seen in the outlawing of war by the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, and in the provisions of the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, that prohibited the use of force in principle. The United States' attack on Iraq violates these principles, which have gained worldwide recognition; that is why it has angered people around the world. In light of this situation, it does not seem rational to revise Article 9. What are your views in this regard?

(Comment)

>> I want to emphasize that the Constitution calls for the realization of peace through diplomatic efforts.

> FUJII Hirohisa (Liberal Party)

>> I think that the U.S. attack on Iraq disturbed international peace, and, in particular, disrupted the functioning of the United Nations. Let me add, however, that it is a historical fact that the United States has long endeavored to create an order for international peace, and we should recognize that it is a magnanimous nation.

> KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> My comment referred to the present situation, that is, to the fact that the gap between the Constitution and reality has been exacerbated due to the willingness of politicians to bow to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau's interpretation. The Constitution is interpreted and applied in accordance with social conditions at any given time, and I do not think that the government's response to date has been unconstitutional. However, I do have a sense that we may have reached the limit of interpreting and applying the Constitution in this way.

>> I do not think that any unconstitutional situations have arisen in the actual application of the Constitution. The gap has arisen partly as a result of interpretation and partly as a result of changes in the social environment. Thus, while it is necessary to apply the Constitution with scrupulous care, we also need to allow the possibility of constitutional revision.

>> I agree up to a point with Mr. FUJII's view of the attack on Iraq. At the same time, we must not forget that Japan faces a threat from North Korea, and, although the ideal is peace that does not depend on force, we must squarely acknowledge the reality that, in some situations, we may have no choice but to use force.


UEDA Munenori (Social Democratic Party)

(To Mr. KONDO)

>> Do you think that the recently enacted emergency-response laws are compatible with the existing Constitution?

>> The Constitution does not make explicit provision for national emergency rights and does not postulate a situation in which such rights would be invoked. Thus, if we try to make legislation in this area compatible with the existing Constitution, I think the resulting measures will be inadequate when viewed in terms of their original aim of readiness for a military emergency; do you agree? I am personally opposed to constitutional revision, but isn't it putting the cart before the horse to enact emergency-response legislation while leaving the Constitution unchanged?

(To Mr. FUJII)

>> The Liberal Party submitted its proposed Basic Law on Security to the House of Representatives in April, but it was also in favor of the emergency-response bills and the proposed revisions of the emergency-response legislation. Am I correct in thinking that the proposed Basic Law on Security and the revised emergency-response legislation are similar in concept?

>> In the section on its purpose (Article 1), the Liberal Party's proposed Basic Law on Security states "This law, [based on] the ideals of pacifism and international cooperation in the Constitution of Japan . . ." Would it be correct to say that the proposed law is compatible with the existing Constitution?

>> If the proposed Basic Law on Security does not conflict with the revised emergency-response legislation and it is also compatible with the Constitution, it follows that there is no conflict between the revised emergency-response legislation and the Constitution. In that case, can I take it that the Liberal Party does not intend to submit its bill but will work to revise the emergency-response legislation instead?

> KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> In my view, the emergency-response legislation is compatible with the existing Constitution.

>> I am seeking the early enactment of a law providing amendment procedures for the existing Constitution, and, on that basis, I advocate revising the Constitution to make explicit provision for national emergency rights. The present emergency-response legislation is inadequate in some respects (for example, it does not provide adequately for the protection of the people, and the question of when the right of self-defense can be invoked in the event of a missile attack has not been fully worked out), but I regard it as a measure enacted on the hypothesis of a "worst scenario" occurring before the Constitution is revised.

> FUJII Hirohisa (Liberal Party)

>> The Liberal Party was in favor of the revised emergency-response legislation in the sense that we agreed it was better than nothing, but this does not amount to complete agreement. To preserve peace in Japan, we must think comprehensively about UN peace operations, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and so on, and I believe that, for this reason, it is essential to enact a Basic Law on Security.

>> I think that the Basic Law on Security proposed by the Liberal Party and the existing Constitution are compatible.

>> I question whether the parties now in power have shown a true understanding of UN peace operations, and rather than revising the emergency-response legislation, I intend to present our proposal for a Basic Law on Security and gain the public's understanding.


INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

(Comments)

>> Article 9 of the Constitution strongly reflects the belief of the Occupation forces that Japan must not be allowed to rearm. In the light of the present international situation, discrepancies have arisen between the provisions of Article 9 and reality, and the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has made up for those discrepancies by means of interpretation.

>> Japan's Constitution has no provisions dealing with the right of self-defense, but from the standpoint of natural law, self-help is recognized regardless of whether or not it is provided for in the Constitution. In light of these facts, it should be recognized as a matter of course that a state possesses the right of self-defense, and I believe that this includes both individual and collective self-defense.

>> I think that we should revise Article 9 to bring it into line with reality. Specifically, I propose: (a) clearly stating a right of self-defense that includes the right of collective self-defense, and making clear the limits of its exercise; (b) an amendment to clearly stipulate the basis of international peace operations in view of the need to enact a general law concerning international peacekeeping activities, given that Japan must play a role in the international community but lacks any constitutional provision for such operations; (c) explicitly reaffirming the existing Constitution's prohibition of wars of aggression.

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

SENGOKU Yoshito, Deputy Chairman

(To Mr. KONDO, Mr. ENDO, and Mr. INOUE)

>> The presence of foreign forces in a nation's territory with no authority under international law, such as a UN resolution or the request or consent of that nation, can not be called anything but an invasion. What grounds are there in international law for the presence of the American and British forces in Iraq, and for sending the Self-Defense Forces based on the Special Measures Bill for Iraq?

> KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> It would certainly be preferable to see an international framework established first, before the reconstruction of Iraq goes ahead, but given the current situation in Iraq, I think that we should assist with reconstruction from the viewpoint of "human security from a humanitarian perspective" even though the framework has yet to be established, and I believe that, as the work proceeds, a consensus on reconstruction will be formed among the Iraqi people themselves.

> ENDO Kazuyoshi (New Komeito)

>> Resolution 1483 has already been passed unanimously by the UN Security Council, and I believe that this provides an international framework for assistance in the reconstruction of Iraq.

> INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)

>> Unlike domestic law, the contents of international law change with the changing situation. Thus, in my view, the lack of a direct basis in international law for assistance in the U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq does not necessarily rule out assistance. We should base our judgment on an overall consideration of the resolutions at the time of the attack on Iraq, the resolutions concerning reconstruction assistance, and other relevant factors.


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

>> Whenever international peace cooperation is discussed, the debate always focuses solely on the issue of whether to send the Self-Defense Forces, but we should also consider providing cooperation by sending other types of personnel such as community police or inspectors for weapons of mass destruction, and legislation for this purpose should be put in place.

>> We should make explicit provision in the Constitution for the duty of the people to provide international peace cooperation.


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

>> The attack on Iraq was carried out without a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force and without proof of an imminent danger from weapons of mass destruction, and I believe that it is a violation of the UN Charter.

>> Since the events of September 11, the United States has adopted a preemptive security policy, but it is doubtful whether order can be maintained in the international community in this way. There is no organization that can take the place of the United Nations in maintaining order in the international community, and I therefore believe that Japan should recognize the importance of the United Nations, even if the United States does not. Further, the contents of the Special Measures Bill for Iraq constitute an exercise of the right of collective self-defense in the form of assistance for U.S. security policy.

>> Because Japan follows the European system of making policy choices within the limits of the Constitution, a dilemma has arisen as Japan tries to align itself with the American method of conducting policy, in which the administration makes choices based on the national interest and the constitutionality of those choices is tested after the fact. Japan should take a stand when necessary in its relations with the United States, based on its own model of policy-making.


UEDA Munenori (Social Democratic Party)

>> The limits of the United Nations were revealed in relation to Iraq, in the sense that it was unable to prevent a superpower from acting unilaterally. Japan should take the initiative in reforming the United Nations along lines consistent with the UN Charter, focusing especially on a review of the right of veto and the establishment of collective security. I believe that this would lead to the concrete realization of the principle of international cooperation set forth in the Constitution.


SHIMOJI Mikio (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> In view of its having failed to take action on the Iraq question for all of twelve years, the United Nations is clearly in need of reform, beginning with the creation of a system for forcible intervention.

>> In the future, Japan needs both to develop a concept for security in the Asian region, and to work out a system to protect itself by taking measures to ensure economic as well as military security. As part of that process, I think we should also reach a conclusion regarding the exercise of the right of collective self-defense.


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

>> A number of laws relating to the overseas dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces have been enacted or proposed, namely, the International Peace Cooperation Law, the Law Concerning Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, the Law Concerning Measures to Ensure National Independence and Security in a Situation of Armed Attack, and the Special Measures Bill for Iraq. It seems to be the common understanding that these measures go beyond the framework of the Constitution. However, the way to address this situation is not to revise the Constitution to recognize the use of force overseas. In light of the general trend of opinion in the international community and the ideals of Article 9, we should search instead for a way to pursue international cooperation by nonmilitary means, and thereby to protect the people and establish Japan as a state with moral principles.


NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> If one takes into account the historical background, including the fact that, after Japan became independent, the United States prevented it from revising its Constitution because of concerns about China, to a certain extent one can appreciate the value of the series of laws, such as the International Peace Cooperation Law, which were enacted using every possible expedient to ensure Japan's security within the limits imposed by being unable to revise the Constitution. Today, when there is no longer a confrontation between rival ideologies, the time has come to give serious consideration to Japan's security with the possibility of constitutional revision in view.


HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> As an economic power that professes pacifism, Japan needs to respond to the international community's demand that it play a role in maintaining world peace, and also to the public's demand that it protect them from the North Korean threat and other dangers. As I see it, the gist of Mr. KONDO's statement was that revision of the Constitution is unavoidable if these goals are to be achieved.


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

>> Because the attack on Iraq was not supported by a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, I consider it illegal. However, there is no system for effective judgment of such illegal actions, and I think that this point is one of the main issues to be addressed in reforming the United Nations.

>> If the weapons of mass destruction which were cited to justify the attack on Iraq are not found, we must think about who should take responsibility and how this should be done. Further, there is a need to verify, in a forum separate from the United Nations, whether the war's objectives and methods were appropriate.

>> The Special Measures Bill for Iraq conflicts with the Constitution, by reason of various problems including the unlawfulness of the attack on Iraq, and the fact that, despite the Constitution's prohibition of occupation governments, the bill provides assistance to the U.S. and British forces which have set up such an administration. We should establish the ideal form of security and international cooperation by enacting a Fundamental Law.


NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The United States is pursuing a global strategy from the standpoint that stability in the Middle East will lead to world stability. I believe that it is our duty as Diet members to think about the Constitution while bearing in mind this global strategy of the United States and the international situation.


FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

(To Mr. KONDO)

>> Defense and international cooperation are certainly important, but they must always be conducted within the framework of the Constitution. The Special Measures Bill for Iraq calls for Japan to be a party to the administration of an occupied territory by the coalition forces. Isn't this a piecemeal violation of Article 9?

> KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The purpose of sending the Self-Defense Forces based on the Special Measures Bill for Iraq is to assist with reconstruction in response to local needs in noncombat areas. I do not regard this as being a party to the administration of an occupied territory by the coalition forces.

> FUJISHIMA Masayuki (Liberal Party)

>> I think that some portions of the Special Measures Bill for Iraq are contrary to the Constitution, and that those portions amount to a piecemeal violation.


HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Mr. HANASHI)

>> I share your view that, in addition to ensuring the peace and security of Japan, we should do everything we can to make an international contribution, but I believe that we should choose to achieve this by nonmilitary means. What are your views in this regard?

(Comment)

>> The existing Constitution was not enacted by the United States alone. The wishes of the international community and the Japanese people were taken into account, and that is why the Constitution has remained firmly established to this day.

> HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> When the Self-Defense Forces have been sent overseas, they have not engaged in direct military operations. Their activities are centered on reconstruction assistance and related work. Such activities are also carried on by NGOs and other organizations, but the Self-Defense Forces, with their high level of training and their mobility, can function more effectively.


NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Japan should not continue forever to have a Constitution that was imposed by the United States in order to make it a subject state. We should formulate a new Constitution taking into account real-world problems, such as the fact that the United States would not necessarily defend Japan in the event of a North Korean attack, because a U.S. attack on North Korea would lead to war with China.


NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman

>> Since the Gulf War, there have been great changes in the international situation. At the present time, the North Korean abductions, North Korea's nuclear program, and related problems have emerged, and the public feels genuinely threatened. Given that it is the duty of the Diet to seek the security of the people, it is very significant that today, for the first time, we have been able to discuss the issue of Article 9 calmly across party lines. As Chairman of the Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks.