Meeting Agenda
Matters concerning the Constitution of Japan
1. Reports were heard from the chairpersons of the Subcommittees.
2. A free discussion was held to conclude the current session of the Diet.
3. The Chairman of the Commission gave an address. (Click here)
Reports on the proceedings of each Subcommittee
Report by YASUOKA Okiharu, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Ideal Constitution as Supreme Law (Main points)
>> It was the common understanding of all the parties that the Preamble and the individual articles of the Constitution are inseparably united, and that the Constitution should be interpreted by treating them as an integral whole.
>> With regard to the ideals contained in the existing Preamble, there was a nearly unanimous appreciation of the fact that they led to the establishment of the concepts of popular sovereignty and democracy in Japan, but it seems that there is still a gap between the parties with regard to the ideal of pacifism.
>> An issue that remains to be addressed is how to achieve harmony between what is universal, in the form of modern constitutionalism, and what is uniquely Japanese, as represented by the nation's history and culture.
>> I was reminded of the need to pay attention to the relationship between the Preamble and the individual articles as we pursue in-depth discussions in our future research on the Constitution, and also of the importance of deciding what kind of message to Japan and the rest of the world should be embodied in the Preamble in the event that it is decided to revise the Constitution in the future.
Report by NAKAGAWA Shoichi, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation (Main points)
>> While there was a common understanding among all members that the principle of renunciation of wars of aggression should be firmly upheld, opinion diverged on the question of whether the pacifism declared in the Preamble and Article 9 should be maintained as the orientation of Japan's security and international cooperation in the 21st century, or whether we should work out new ideals for international cooperation, together with putting in place a defense structure, in view of the changing domestic and foreign environment. I think that the focus of the debate was narrowed down to this question.
>> In future, I think that we need to carry on the debate in greater depth based on the discussions so far, and, at the same time, work toward forming a consensus on this question without delay, in light of the rapidly changing international situation.
Report by OIDE Akira, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Guarantee of Fundamental Human Rights (Main points)
>> The social security systems of the Scandinavian countries were discussed to provide a perspective for reform of Japan's social security system, but opinion as to their evaluation was divided.
>> Some speakers stressed the need to rebuild the social security system in terms of "social solidarity" rather than administrative measures provided to the people by the state.
>> With regard to the declining birthrate, among other comments, it was suggested that the problem should be solved by designing a system that enables society as a whole to provide support for child-rearing, and that it could be instructive to study the Scandinavian social security systems.
>> Based on the principle of Article 25, which guarantees "the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living," I think that we should take the discussion of the right to maintain a certain standard of living to a higher level, suited to the 21st century, in order to ensure that people can live fully human lives with pride and a sense of meaning.
Report by SUGIURA Seiken, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Ideal Government and Organizations (Main points)
>> I recognized anew that, in an era when the need to respond promptly and appropriately to complex social and economic conditions means that we are called on to implement a wide array of policy measures as the circumstances demand, it is important not only to reflect but focus the popular will in order to strongly promote policies that will be supported by the majority of the people.
>> From this viewpoint, I was made strongly aware of the need to study the pros and cons of the bicameral system, the ideal form of the House of Councillors, and the ideal form of the parliamentary Cabinet system. Also, the role of political parties in focusing and reflecting the will of the people is becoming increasingly important in view of the broad spectrum of public opinion in present-day society, and I felt that we should think deeply about what form political parties should take, including their campaign pledges (manifestoes) and internal decision-making procedures.
Free discussion to conclude the current session of the Diet (in order of presentation)
Initial round of comments by representatives of each party
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With regard to the issue of Article 9, in light of the threat from North Korea and the government's duty to protect the lives and property of the people, I agree with Mr. KONDO's statement in the Subcommittee on Security and International Cooperation, in which he said, "While firmly upholding the ideals of paragraph 1, which renounces wars of aggression, . . . 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. Provisions should be established . . . for declaring a state of emergency."
>> I would like to ask the members who oppose revision of the Constitution four questions: (a) What is the basis for their assertion that there is no risk of an invasion of Japan? (b) Can Japan ensure its security solely by trusting its neighboring countries? (c) Why can't these members trust the systems that have been established in the existing Constitution, such as the system to restrain the use of military force through civilian control? (d) Isn't it true that provisions that limit our foreign policy options, such as the option of participating in a collective security system, actually increase the risk of an armed attack on Japan?
>> With regard to issues concerning the symbolic Emperor system, taking into consideration such examples as the British and Dutch monarchies, we should state explicitly in the Constitution that the Emperor is "head of state" in order to clearly adopt a position consistent with the reality, i.e., the fact that, as well as symbolizing the culture, history, and traditions of Japan, the Emperor plays a role as the nation's ceremonial representative. This does not alter the present form of the Emperor-as-symbol system, nor does it conflict with the idea of popular sovereignty.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan is currently in a critical situation and is having to make far-reaching changes. The crisis of public finances is the result of a crisis in society as a whole, and it will only be solved by overhauling each of the systems-political, economic, and social-that make up the social system in a broad sense.
>> A number of security issues remain undecided, such as the nature of a self-defense capability designed exclusively for defense, and how the exercise of the rights of individual and collective self-defense should be regarded. Further discussion is necessary, including the question of what provisions should be made in the Constitution.
>> We should discuss the possibility of creating a body with constitutional status to protect human rights, as a number of European nations have done.
>> In thinking about the Constitution, there is a broad array of issues to be studied, including decentralization, and unifying the ruling parties and the Cabinet. However, as I see it, the Constitution is a fundamental law that sets forth the essence of the various fundamental laws on specific matters, and as we discuss the Constitution, a vision for the nation in the 21st century will emerge.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> New Komeito is in favor of adding to the Constitution, i.e., supplementing it by making explicit provision for environmental rights, privacy rights, and so on, while firmly upholding Article 9.
>> New Komeito does not recognize any need to revise Article 9, given that the existence of the Self-Defense Forces is already constitutional, since the existing Constitution recognizes the exercise of the right of self-defense, and given that, in regard to Japan's international contribution, it is constitutional for the Self-Defense Forces to provide nonmilitary rear-area support in post-conflict regions based on a UN Security Council resolution.
>> In my personal opinion, we should make explicit provision in the Constitution for the Self-Defense Forces to do humanitarian assistance work overseas, in light of the criticism that such operations exceed the framework of an exclusively defensive posture, and we should also enact a Basic Security Law to provide an underpinning for Article 9.
TAKEYAMA Yuriko (Liberal Party)
>> In the "Basic Policy for Creating a New Constitution" which the Liberal Party issued in December 2000, among other points, we proposed: (a) to set forth the fundamental ideals of a vision for the nation and the people in the Preamble; (b) to maintain the principles of the existing Constitution with regard to the Emperor; (c) to take into consideration Japan's good traditions regarding the rights and duties of the people; (d) in the area of security, to make explicit provision for the powers of the Self-Defense Forces and the Prime Minister's right of command in order to establish full civilian control, and to participate in UN-centered operations; (e) to make thorough provisions to ensure that the Diet functions as "the highest organ of state power"; (f) to determine the status of executive power according to the principle of the precedence of legislative power; (g) to establish a constitutional court; (h) to clarify the meaning of local autonomy and the roles of the central and local governments; (i) to review the single fiscal year basis of the budgetary system and related matters, and to make the Board of Audit an auxiliary of the Diet; (j) to set forth the fundamental principles of education and the ideal form of cultural administration; (k) to ease the requirements for initiating a constitutional amendment.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
>> It is now becoming increasingly clear that the evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction that was cited to justify going to war in Iraq was false, and Prime Minister KOIZUMI is being held strictly to account for acquiescing to President Bush's wish and supporting the Iraq war.
>> The Special Measures Bill for Iraq clearly violates Article 9. Furthermore, what the Iraqi people are asking for is nonmilitary humanitarian aid in such areas as medical care, jobs, and education.
>> I believe that the right course for Japan in the 21st century is not to revise its Constitution and become a nation that joins America in using force. Now, more than ever, I believe that the right course is to strive to be a nation that upholds the spirit of Article 9 and the UN Charter and puts it into practice.
>> We must persist in seeking a peaceful settlement of the North Korean question.
>> In my view, the "new human rights" are already recognized with Article 13 as a basis. What is needed now is to make them concrete by means of legislation.
(Concerning the comments by Mr. HANASHI)
>> Mr. HANASHI commented that we cannot ensure the nation's peace and security solely by trusting neighboring countries, but the pacifist principles set forth in the Preamble do not mean relying on the help of others. They proclaim the active pursuit of peace diplomacy. Also, one can clearly see that the "justice and faith of the . . . peoples of the world" can indeed be trusted when one looks at the worldwide popular opposition to the war in Iraq.
>> Mr. HANASHI questioned the basis for the belief that Japan will not be invaded, and he suggested that the risk of invasion has actually increased in recent years. But the burden of proof should be on those who advocate a change of policy, from the existing policy of aspiring to peace and security without relying on armed force, toward acquiring military power.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
>> In connection with the Special Measures Bill for Iraq, Prime Minister KOIZUMI should be held to account for his reckless support of the United States, in light of a number of factors, including the facts that (a) the armed attack on Iraq by the U.S. and British forces is an unjustifiable violation of Article 42 of the UN Charter, and (b) it is doubtful whether the weapons of mass destruction that were used as a pretext for the attack ever existed.
>> To participate in the coalition occupying Iraq would violate the Constitution as it would be an exercise of the right of belligerency, which is prohibited by Article 9, paragraph 2.
>> In keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, Japan should limit its activities in support of Iraqi reconstruction to humanitarian assistance by civilians, for example, providing medical care that draws on Japan's experience of nuclear attack in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>> The revision of three labor laws proposed in the current session of the Diet has detracted from the labor rights that are guaranteed in Article 27 and elsewhere. In particular, the government bill to amend the Labor Standards Law is an attempt to provide employers with an explicit right of dismissal, and I think that it is a fundamental reversal of the essence of the law.
>> In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the number of suicides for economic reasons. Securing jobs is very important from the viewpoint of the right to a decent standard of living set forth in Article 25, and I believe that this is a problem that can be solved politically.
>> All workers should enjoy the guarantee of the right to organize, bargain and act collectively set forth in Article 28. Constitutionally, it is problematic that these rights are currently restricted for civil servants. In principle, these rights should be guaranteed.
>> The task that this Commission is being called on to perform, above all, is to investigate the actual state of the Constitution and work toward making its implementation a reality.
INOUE Kiichi (New Conservative Party)
>> In my view, the Constitution is a set of substantive norms containing two kinds of provisions: those that deal with domestic concerns (such as fundamental human rights and the organization of government) and those that deal with external concerns (such as pacifism and security).
>> I think that a constitution is essentially normative in nature, and it must consist of effective provisions. As I see it, it was necessary to include a Preamble, which is not normative in nature, in the Constitution of Japan in order to clarify its ideals, because they were fundamentally different from those of the Meiji Constitution, but those ideals have now taken root, and thus I see no need for a Preamble in the next Constitution.
>> I see no problem in the present provision which declares the Emperor to be a symbol, in view of the fact that functions similar to those of a head of state are vested in the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister's position at the head of the Cabinet therefore amounts to the position of head of state.
>> In the area of security, after first clearly establishing that we possess the right of self-defense, including collective self-defense, we should establish provisions concerning the extent of that right and the direction of our international contributions.
>> It is necessary to clarify the relationship between fundamental human rights and the public welfare, and to make explicit provisions for the "new human rights."
>> With regard to the organization of government, we are being asked to create a system in tune with the changing times, but this is an issue that can probably be addressed in terms of the way that the existing institutions are operated.
Comments after the first round
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution of Japan was created by the GHQ in the absence of sovereignty, freedom of speech, and other civil liberties. In view of the process by which it was enacted, we should revise the Constitution completely, so that we have a Constitution that belongs to the Japanese themselves.
>> There are various problems at the United Nations, including the fact that the enemy nation clause still exists, and the problem of the veto. Japan should press for reform of the United Nations.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> A previous speaker stated that some of the evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction is false, but it is wrong to call the Iraq offensive invalid as a whole because of such minor errors.
>> In view of the existence of the North Korean question, among other factors, Japan's security cannot be preserved merely by trusting in the "justice and faith of the . . . peoples of the world" as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. We should recognize fully that politicians have a duty to protect the security of the people.
>> I believe that we cannot make a true international contribution solely by providing money or by going to safe areas only.
KANEKO Tetsuo (Social Democratic Party)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. HANASHI)
>> The basis for asserting that Japan will not be invaded is the government's opinion that "there is no nation that will invade Japan."
>> I do not necessarily think that Japan's security can be preserved merely by trusting neighboring countries. It is necessary to make active diplomatic efforts to gain trust. Viewed in this light, I think there are a number of points that are questionable in terms of Japan's diplomatic stance, such as the recent comment by a leading politician justifying the practice under Japanese colonial rule of forcing Koreans to adopt Japanese names, the Prime Minister's visits to Yasukuni Shrine, and the question of compensation to individuals who were transported for forced labor during the war.
>> With regard to North Korea's nuclear weapons program, we should never recognize the possession of nuclear weapons, in view of their inhumane nature. A political solution to the North Korean problem, including the nuclear question, must be found within an international framework.
>> Europe has avoided the crisis of war through efforts toward integration of the European Union, and I believe that we can protect Japan's peace and security by making similar efforts in Northeast Asia.
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. KANEKO)
>> Mr. KANEKO mentioned the recent comment on Korean name changes
and the controversy over visits by public officials to Yasukuni Shrine,
but in the background to these issues there are differences in the perception
of history. It is truly irresponsible to claim that recognizing the other
country's position in its entirety is the way to build confidence. I would
like to ask if what was said is a really responsible statement.
>> It is certainly desirable to build a regional security structure in East Asia, but the situation in Asia differs in some ways from that of Europe; for one thing, the European nations have common values. If Japan is to take a leadership role in building confidence, I believe there is a need both for diplomacy and for military power to back up diplomacy and protect Japan's and the region's security. In my view, we can build true peace only through an approach that combines both dialogue and pressure.
KONNO Azuma (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I think that in order to adjust the relationship between maintaining public order and guaranteeing human rights in the present era, we must adopt the concept of an open and democratic "community" on a global scale as our perspective, and I think that the existing Constitution is not inconsistent with this approach.
>> Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi's comment that mistaken intelligence about weapons of mass destruction is a minor matter in relation to the overall picture strikes me as problematic, as it means that he accepts manipulation of information in the future.
>> I believe that we should carry out international cooperation based on peace diplomacy. However, since the Gulf War, the government has been bending Article 9 to allow it to send the Self-Defense Forces overseas. This approach has reached its limit, and we should ask the public whether or not to revise Article 9.
NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We need to think across party lines about how best to protect the people under present-day international conditions, taking into account the relevant facts, including: (a) the fact that studies of brain physiology show that human beings have a killer instinct; (b) the fact that, ever since it was founded as a nation, the United States has been developing a global strategy; and (c) the fact that Japan has not enacted an anti-espionage or similar law.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi)
>> The intelligence concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which served as a basis for the use of force against Iraq, has been shown to be false, and the United States and Britain are being held to account, as is Prime Minister KOIZUMI, who supported the Iraq war. I call on Mr. NAKAGAWA Shoichi to withdraw his statement that this important issue, which became the basis for breaking international rules, was "minor," and I would also like to ask what he meant by this.
>> What are your views of the moves by South Korea and China toward peaceful settlement of the North Korean problem? Also, isn't the possibility of a solution likely to become more distant if increased military pressure is applied to North Korea?
>> Do you think that an international contribution can only be made by military means?
NAKAGAWA Shoichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. HARUNA)
>> It was understood by every nation, including France and Germany, that weapons of mass destruction existed. While it is true that some of the intelligence regarding evidence of such weapons was in error, this does not invalidate the whole picture.
>> I did not say that we should solve the North Korean question by military pressure alone. I think that we should work to solve the problem through a combination of dialogue and pressure, while taking into consideration the five-nation talks and other factors.
>> Both nonmilitary and military international contributions are needed. In the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe it is important to work together with the United States and cooperate with the Iraqis in such areas as rebuilding the infrastructure for daily life.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. KANEKO)
>> I certainly did not mean to suggest that we do not want peace. Japan can be said to be demonstrating its commitment to peace to the world when one looks, for example, at our contribution to the United Nations or the size of our ODA. But I raised the questions of whether it is enough just to contribute money and what provisions should be made in the Constitution, as it is our political responsibility to address these issues if we are to preserve peace in Japan today.
NAKAYAMA Masaaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With regard to the Prime Minister's visits to Yasukuni Shrine, there are also war dead from the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan enshrined there, and I would like to pass on to you the fact that leading Chinese academics have expressed understanding when I have explained that the Prime Minister goes to Yasukuni to apologize for the war that was caused by Japan's former leaders.
>> History teaches us that peace is difficult to achieve. Japan enacted an overly idealistic Constitution, and this is a problem.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Even France and Germany, which opposed an armed offensive, have a positive attitude to humanitarian assistance for Iraq, and in Japan, too, I would say that every party is probably in favor. Some people argue, however, that Japan's humanitarian assistance should be carried out not by the Self-Defense Forces but by civilians, whether government workers, members of the private sector, or volunteers. But I am not comfortable with this idea, as Iraq is still a dangerous place, even though the major fighting has ended.
>> The approach that has been used until now to enable Japan to make international contributions, i.e., interpreting the Constitution, is approaching its limit, as we saw in the debate over dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces in relation to Article 9 during the deliberations on the Special Measures Bill for Iraq. The overseas dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces should be released from the spell of alleged unconstitutionality. I think that the best option is to review the Constitution without delay, and I expect that the debate will focus on whether to establish provisions enabling Japan to use a certain amount of force based on UN resolutions.
TANIKAWA Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> To create a system that reflects the diversity of public opinion and also helps stabilize the conduct of national affairs, we should devise ways to make the electoral systems of the Upper and Lower Houses different, and we should also clarify the division of roles between them.
>> We need to study the ideal form of the system for passage of rejected bills under Article 59, paragraph 2, and the system for joint committees of both Houses, from the viewpoint of ensuring the stable conduct of national affairs under the parliamentary Cabinet system.
>> There is much to be learned from the British parliamentary Cabinet system, including the way their ruling party and Cabinet are unified, but we should put into practice a parliamentary Cabinet system suited to Japan, taking into account our national characteristics and actual conditions.
>> To enable the Prime Minister to carry out policies oriented to the medium to long term with strong leadership, the term of office of the Prime Minister (as head of the ruling party) should coincide with the terms of the members of the House of Representatives.
HANASHI Nobuyuki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While the spirit of the guarantee of human rights in the existing Constitution should be regarded highly, I believe that, in all areas, there is an increasing need to think about things not just from the viewpoint of the individual but also from a public point of view, in terms of the family, the community, and the nation.
>> We should pursue the "social solidarity" approach at the national level by making explicit provision in the Constitution for a "duty to protect the nation." (This does not mean introducing conscription or similar measures.) At the same time, in light of Japan's tradition of fostering a consciousness of social solidarity through the family and the home, we should clearly stipulate the importance of home and family in the Preamble and elsewhere in the Constitution.
>> In the field of "new human rights," in particular, I think we should actively study the possibility of incorporating into the Constitution the right to privacy, the right to control of one's image, the right to know, and environmental rights, among others, in addition to the various traditional rights already stipulated there.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. TANIKAWA)
>> I am basically in agreement with Mr. TANIKAWA's views. However, in the parliamentary Cabinet system, the people give a political mandate to a party when they support the campaign pledges (manifestoes) declared by its candidate for prime minister and by the party itself, and, properly speaking, it should never happen that the ruling party and the Cabinet disagree on policies. Yet there are those who support the Liberal Democratic Party but not the policies of the KOIZUMI Cabinet. If Mr. KOIZUMI is reelected as party president, it stands to reason that the policies he announced in the election for party president will become a campaign pledge by his party in the next elections, and to think otherwise is to misunderstand how the parliamentary Cabinet system works. In my view, this misconception must be corrected without delay.
HARUNA Naoaki (Japanese Communist Party)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. HANASHI)
>> I oppose making the Emperor the head of state, as sovereignty resides with the people. From the viewpoint of democracy and the principle of equality, I think that at some time in the future the question of the Emperor system should be resolved, but as this is a constitutional issue, a national consensus will be needed.
>> A previous speaker said that the Emperor should have the status of head of state, on the model of the European monarchies. But it would be incompatible with the popular sovereignty proclaimed by the Constitution of Japan to make the Emperor head of state, in view of the fact that the systems of European monarchies such as Britain are premised on granting sovereign power in part to the monarch.
>> Mr. HANASHI seems to interpret the term "the people" in "the sovereignty of the people" as including the Emperor, but when one considers the provision in Article 10 on the conditions necessary for being a Japanese national, together with the laws and other measures enacted in response to this provision, it is clear that the Emperor is not included in "the people" as defined by the Constitution.
OKUNO Seisuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
(Concerning the comments by Mr. KANEKO)
>> With regard to the Prime Minister's visits to Yasukuni Shrine and other matters which have led to various criticisms by neighboring countries, I would like to point out that these issues are seen in an entirely different light depending on the religious views and other aspects of the observer's background.
MIZUSHIMA Hiroko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> During the free discussions, we should be carrying on an in-depth debate based on the informants' statements, but we have not been doing this. For example, today it has been suggested that we should make explicit provision in the Constitution for "the importance of home and family," but we heard previously from an informant who pointed out the undesirable effects of prescribing morality in the Constitution. If those effects are not going to be considered by subsequent speakers, what was the point of having the informant make a statement?
>> In my view, before arguing for putting moral prescriptions into the Constitution, we should recognize that morality is nurtured in everyday life, and that children grow through communication with adults and through a process of trial and error among themselves.
>> Recently, it seems that several Diet members have made comments that blatantly violate the principle of the right to a decent standard of living, in the case of the comment that childless women should not receive pensions, or that are insensitive toward victims of gang rape and women in general. These comments are inexcusable.
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Something like the federal system of the United States was probably envisaged in Chapter VIII of the Constitution, which guarantees the system of local self-government, but the system has been operated in a centralized way by means of the Local Autonomy Law and government notifications.
>> In promoting decentralization, the central government pays uniform subsidies to local governments, regardless of their own efforts or lack thereof. As a result, these subsidies tend to take away the incentive to carry out reforms. The government's tacit guarantee of local government finances, mainly through local allocation taxes, is based not on the Constitution but merely on a notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1955. I think that we should once again make clear the meaning of "the principle of local autonomy" in Chapter VIII of the Constitution.