Meeting Agenda
1.Resignation of directors and appointment of replacement directors
Two directors were appointed from the Commission members:
KINOSHITA Atsushi, due to the resignation from the Commission of FURUKAWA Motohisa; both are members of the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents.
YAMAHANA Ikuo, due to the resignation as a director of OIDE Akira; both
are members of the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents.
2.Establishment of Subcommittees
It was decided, after discussion, to establish a Subcommittee on the Ideal
Constitution as Supreme Law; a Subcommittee on Security and International
Cooperation; a Subcommittee on Guarantee of Fundamental Human Rights; and
a Subcommittee on Ideal Government and Organizations.
3.Requests for attendance of informants
It was decided, after discussion, to request the attendance of informants
at subcommittee meetings.
4.Motion for approval of assignment of members to attend an Open Hearing
Location: Hiroshima Prefecture
Date: Monday, March 15, 2004
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
A free discussion was held on the Constitution of Japan. Chairman NAKAYAMA made a comment on the aims of the free discussion.
Main points of comments by members of the Commission (in order of presentation)
Initial round of comments by representatives of each party
FURUYA Keiji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With regard to Article 9, we should retain Paragraph 1 and delete Paragraph 2. On that basis, we should stipulate clearly that Japan possesses and can exercise the rights of individual and collective self-defense, and we should make explicit provision for the Self-Defense Forces as the entity responsible for defense and international contributions. We should also establish provisions for a state of emergency. In the Preamble, we should make explicit provision for Japan's contributions to the international community.
>> In reforming the pension system, what is needed is a perspective of "social solidarity," in other words, mutual support. We should discuss the ideal ratio of the social security burden on taxpayers, and the relationship between the pension system and national finances.
>> We should maximize the fiscal resources of local governments and make the correspondence between benefits and burdens clear by creating a structure based on principles of self-determination and self-responsibility and by improving administrative efficiency. To this end, we should promote the "triple reforms" of local public finances, i.e., reducing national subsidies and tax grants to local governments, and, at the same time, transferring some tax revenue sources to them, and we should also aim to introduce a do-shu system.
>> With regard to the work of this Commission, after we have investigated the remaining points at issue, each party should present concrete ideas on the Constitution for discussion. The Commission's final report should delineate a course of action based on the debate, and a body empowered to submit bills to the Diet should then be established.
>> The lack of a law for the actual implementation of Article 96, which lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution, amounts to legislative nonfeasance. We should immediately put in place the relevant legislation, including a law concerning referendums on constitutional amendments.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In contrast to Europe, the situation in Japan is that the Supreme Court avoids judgments of unconstitutionality and the authorities do not adhere to the "rule of law," as can be seen in the following examples: (a) the Japanese Supreme Court's ruling that the provisions for the apportionment of seats in the elections to the House of Councillors in July 2001 were constitutional; (b) the ruling by Italy's Constitutional Court that a law giving the Prime Minister and other top officials immunity from prosecution was unconstitutional; and (c) the case brought before the European Court of Justice by the European Commission with regard to sanctioning France and Germany for violating the budget-deficit rules of the Stability and Growth Pact.
>> (a) There is no basis in international law for the deployment in Iraq of the Self-Defense Forces, which are a military force. (b) The grounds on which the deployment is predicated, namely, the U.S. attack on Iraq, were itself a violation of international law and the UN Charter. (c) Deployment of the Self-Defense Forces is also a breach of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and (d) it exceeds the limits allowed for by the Constitution. For these reasons, if Japan had a Constitutional Court, the Democratic Party of Japan would likely take action before the Court to halt the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq.
>> Sending the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq negates the rule of law in the name of the need for international cooperation. If it is absolutely necessary to send forces, we should first revise the UN Charter, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and the Constitution of Japan.
FUKUSHIMA Yutaka (New Komeito)
>> We must examine Article 25 from two perspectives: how to improve the social security system in the future, and how to finance it.
>> Paragraph 1 of Article 25, which guarantees the "minimum standards of . . . living" that are the right of all people, should be understood to cover the system of measures financed by taxes. Paragraph 2 of the Article should be understood to cover the creation of an insurance-style social security system. This is not to say that these provisions should be changed at once, but thorough debate is needed with regard to Paragraph 2, in part because its provisions have become unclear as social conditions have changed.
>> In my view, the provisions for fields to be covered by Paragraph 2 of Article 25 should be expanded considerably. We should create a new article, separate from Article 25, to deal with child welfare, defining it as the "nurturing of the next generation." We should also create a new article dealing with the welfare of people with disabilities, stipulating their equality, prohibiting discrimination against them, and providing for their participation in society. Further, I think that provisions on public health should be located in a newly created article dealing with environmental rights.
YOSHII Hidekatsu (Japanese Communist Party)
>> In thinking about the Constitution today, the key issue is not the pro-revisionists' claim that the Constitution should be amended to bring it into line with realities that are unconstitutional; the key issue is the need to strictly respect every article of the Constitution and to work toward the full implementation of its peaceful and democratic provisions. When we take a broad view of the course of the 21st century, far from considering Article 9 out of date, we should recognize it as being ahead of its time.
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI has tried to rationalize the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq by quoting part of the Preamble, but he is making selective use of the Constitution and distorting its meaning.
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI claims that Japan will be isolated from the international community if we do not deploy the Self-Defense Forces, but, in reality, the vast majority of countries have refused to send troops to Iraq. Instead of deploying the Self-Defense Forces, Japan should work to create a UN-centered framework for reconstruction assistance in place of the present occupation government under U.S. military control. That would be an international contribution befitting Japan as the nation whose Constitution contains Article 9.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Prime Minister KOIZUMI justified sending Self-Defense Forces to Iraq by quoting part of the Preamble, but it is doubtful how far the nation accepts this rationale. The pacifist principles of the Constitution should be interpreted by taking the Preamble and Article 9 together as an integral whole. The Preamble and Article 9 declare the renunciation of war by the government, and the dispatch of troops is therefore unconstitutional.
>> The "Resolution on Non-Deployment of the Self-Defense Forces Overseas" which was adopted by the House of Councillors in 1954, at the time of the enactment of the Self-Defense Forces Law and the Defense Agency Establishment Law, is still valid today.
>> Changing the Constitution to adapt it to realities that are unconstitutional would be a change for the worse, not an amendment in the positive sense of the word.
Comments after the first round
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The debate on overseas dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces is reaching the point where we should set forth our conclusions by stating them explicitly in the Constitution.
>> The dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq is not unconstitutional because they are being sent not to engage in the use of force, which is prohibited by the Constitution, but to carry out humanitarian reconstruction assistance and related work in noncombat zones.
>> Even if a Constitutional Court existed, it would likely avoid ruling on this question. We have thus reached the point where the Diet should take responsibility for clarifying such matters as the conditions for the use of force and the limits of self-defense, and we should pursue a debate to that end.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> Mr. SENGOKU states that the Self-Defense Forces have a military presence in Iraq as a Japanese armed force, but I disagree. The Self-Defense Forces have another aspect besides that of an armed force, namely, they carry out disaster relief work as an emergency assistance squad, and their operations in Iraq will be of the latter type.
>> The terrorism now occurring in Iraq is aimed against civilization and the principles of freedom. One could call the situation that has arisen centered on Iraq a new kind of war. The question is how to establish a new pacifism under these conditions.
>> Whether to send the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq is a difficult decision, but I believe that sending them to provide humanitarian assistance does fall_albeit just barely_within the limits of a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> A constitution consists of the accumulated historical wisdom of humanity, and as such its contents evolve. It is certainly possible that a constitution enacted sixty years ago might have become divorced from reality, but certain of its norms should be strictly protected as principles, namely, those concerning human rights, pacifism, and international cooperation, as these are products of the wisdom of humanity.
>> The separation of powers which underpins the rule of law must be maintained, and to that end I believe that the power of judicial review is important. However, this has been reduced to a mere formality, mainly due to the "acts of state" doctrine. Thus, it is important to debate what form the power of judicial review should take.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq is not unconstitutional as they will conduct operations in noncombat zones, and they will not use force to resolve international conflicts as a sovereign right of the nation.
>> The thinking on security that is the accepted wisdom in the international community should be written into the Constitution. First, with regard to the right of individual self-defense, we should make explicit provision in the Constitution for the Self-Defense Forces, as the public now understands the necessity for this. Next, we need to think more flexibly about the interpretation that holds that we possess the right of collective self-defense but cannot exercise it. We should also take a broader approach to collective security, whether within the United Nations framework or outside it.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The reason given by the United States for invading Iraq has changed from fighting terrorism to searching for weapons of mass destruction, but neither claim has been substantiated. The United States' action constitutes an act of aggression as defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 of 1974.
>> According to the terms of that resolution, Japan is taking the side of the aggressors by going to Iraq under conditions where sovereignty has not been returned to the Iraqi people. To be a party to a war of aggression is a violation of Article 9, which renounces war. If we amend Article 9 without ever having realized its principles, we will forfeit the trust of every nation.
TOKAI Kisaburo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution shapes the nation, and, in its turn, the nation shapes the Constitution. The important question is what is our ideal vision for the nation.
>> We must look at whether or not the spirit of the Constitution can be put into practice in society. Japan has many options in relation to international cooperation and international peace. I hope that the Subcommittees will carry on a thorough debate, independent of constitutional issues, as to what kind of nation Japan should become. I do not take the position that the Constitution was imposed on Japan, but if there are any parts of the Constitution that are undesirable when viewed in terms of an ideal vision of the nation, they should be changed.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Self-Defense Forces are being sent to Iraq to provide humanitarian reconstruction assistance in noncombat areas. This is an international contribution within the framework of the Constitution, not a use of force. However, it is problematic that we have to pass a law whenever a situation of this kind arises, and each time there is another constitutional debate. We need to create an authorizing law after first clearly defining terms such as "war" and "terrorism."
>> The Self-Defense Forces have earned high regard for their work in peacekeeping operations and related fields, and it will be in the national interest to make clear provisions for their constitutional and legal status and for Japan's international peace cooperation.
>> We should certainly pass a bill governing national referendums on constitutional amendments during the current Diet session.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> There is growing public interest in revising the Constitution, and this is felt to be realizable, but the problem is the revision procedure. The procedure laid down in Article 96 sets the bar too high.
>> There is also the question of whether the article concerning the procedure for constitutional amendment can itself be amended under that article's current provisions, or whether this would be self-contradictory. The Diet should seriously discuss the provisions on the amendment procedure.
MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Mr. SENGOKU said that the deployment of Self-Defense Force troops to Iraq is unconstitutional. But the Self-Defense Forces are going to Iraq not to use force but to make an international contribution, namely, humanitarian reconstruction assistance, and this does not violate the Constitution in any way.
>> I doubt that the present Constitution would allow us to have the backbone to defend our own country. Seventy to eighty percent of the Japanese people want the Constitution revised.
>> The idea of a UN standby force put forward by the Democratic Party of Japan is meaningless, because it would face the same problems as the Self-Defense Forces if it were established under the existing Constitution.
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Under international law the Self-Defense Forces are an army, and therefore some basis is required to justify their presence on another country's soil, but no basis exists in this case.
>> Properly speaking, explicit provision should be made for the Self-Defense Forces in the Constitution, so that they are brought under its control. However, we cannot discuss this subject hastily under the present conditions, given that international law is not being observed.
>> In making international contributions, we should not ignore the United Nations and follow in the wake of American unilateralism.
> MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Mr. SENGOKU's view is based on the principle of the centrality of the United Nations. In practice, however, the United Nations is not a gathering of peace-loving peoples. This being the case, we should delete Paragraph 2 of Article 9 and make explicit provision in the Constitution for the Self-Defense Forces.
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> If we were to follow Mr. MORIOKA's view, the order of the international community would be determined by the powerful, and the order of international law would be completely ignored.
> NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Assistance by the Self-Defense Forces in the reconstruction of Iraq can be said to have a basis in international law. One location where this can be found is Security Council Resolution 1511 of October 2003, which requested that member nations provide humanitarian assistance.
FUKUSHIMA Yutaka (New Komeito)
>> The deployment of the Self-Defense Forces in Iraq does not involve military force.
>> One option for Japan's security is to choose not to become a so-called "normal nation." We need to make a realistic decision as to the path that Japan should take, looking ahead fifty to one hundred years and reflecting on the lessons of our past involvement in war.
>> With regard to the amendment procedure, it has been argued that the bar is too high in requiring the concurring vote of "two-thirds of more of all the members of each House." But I wonder whether that is really too high, considering that the electoral turnout is typically about 60 percent, and two-thirds of that is 40 percent.
SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We need to examine how tax money is used and implement reforms from the viewpoint of the public.
>> I believe that radical reform, such as the adoption of a do-shu system, will be necessary to transform the centralized bureaucratic system.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is regrettable that, because of its constitutional constraints, in the past Japan has lacked the view of security that is the accepted wisdom in the international community.
>> The right of collective self-defense should be exercised with great restraint, but we should recognize it in certain cases. With regard to collective security, a framework centered on the United Nations does exist but is not yet mature, and I believe that in the future it will be necessary to reform the United Nations itself, once Japan has gained a permanent seat on the Security Council.
MASHIKO Teruhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It is of the greatest importance to maintain the stance that, as the only nation to have experienced atomic attack, Japan will never wage war. We must defend the nation within the framework of an exclusively defensive military posture.
>> The Constitution is not an immutable code, but Article 9 must be firmly maintained. I believe that the Self-Defense Forces should withdraw from Iraq, and that while international contributions are certainly important, they should be made only at the request of the United Nations.
YOSHII Hidekatsu (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The case for revising the Constitution is sometimes based on the claim that it was imposed on Japan. But the pro-revision case in fact has its origins in what could be called an imposed need for revision, because the United States made Japan establish an army, knowing that this was unconstitutional, with the intention of forcing us to revise the Constitution in order to resolve the resulting unconstitutional situation.
>> Recently, there have been moves to revise the Constitution by calling for environmental rights, the right to privacy, and so on, but their real aim is to revise Article 9. The essential thing is to preserve Article 9. Having gained the trust of the world as the nation that possesses Article 9, Japan must not become a source of military tensions.
>> The important thing is not to bring the Constitution into line with unconstitutional realities, but to put it into practice as a whole. Far from being outdated, Article 9 is ahead of its time.
IWANAGA Mineichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
(To Mr. SENGOKU)
>> Security Council Resolution 1511 of October 13, 2003 called on UN member nations to provide assistance for the reconstruction of Iraq, and I believe that this is sufficient basis for deploying the Self-Defense Forces. In today's global society, Japan will be isolated if we do not send the Self-Defense Forces overseas. In your view, how should we maintain Japan's international standing?
(Comment)
>> In reforming the system of local government, we need to simplify the system's dual structure and take decisive steps to reduce the burden on the public.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In light of the high expectations of the Iraqi people toward the Self-Defense Forces, I believe that the present constitutional debate on security comes too late to be useful.
>> Municipal mergers are under consideration in many parts of the country, but the do-shu system is also relevant to the debate on a future vision for the nation, and we should conduct intensive discussions on these issues in an integrated way in the Diet.
>> I think that we should discuss a unicameral system, a subject which has been raised by both Prime Minister KOIZUMI and Mr. KAN, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan. The majority of the world's nations have adopted a system of this type, and I expect it would have popular support.
>> I think that we should conduct an intensive debate on a system of popular election of the Prime Minister, which would encourage political participation by the public and increase the level of trust.
KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan finds itself caught in an impasse. The reason is that we have not yet determined our ideals, that is, a clear vision of the nation. We should have established such a vision at the end of the Cold War. In particular, the major tasks now facing us are: (a) making it clear that executive power belongs to politics, and (b) establishing decentralization, especially in the fiscal sector, in accordance with the principle of local autonomy referred to in Article 92.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Instead of trying to use the logic of force to solve terrorism and other forms of organized crime or crimes against humanity, these could have been addressed by means of judicial proceedings such as an international criminal suit. Despite its initial enthusiasm for the creation of the International Criminal Court, Japan still has not ratified it, and I suspect that this is because the United States has not done so. I question this attitude of viewing the world from an American perspective. I think that Japan still has an important role to play as part of a UN-centered approach.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(To Mr. IWANAGA)
>> Security Council Resolution 1511 is not an adequate basis for sending the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq, as the legitimacy of the provisional occupation authority in Iraq has not been confirmed. If we wish to use the Self-Defense Forces to provide humanitarian assistance, we should make efforts to have the United Nations pass a resolution calling on all nations to take part in peacekeeping operations in Iraq.
> IWANAGA Mineichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Your comment seems to imply that Japan need not do anything to assist with reconstruction; is that your intention? How should we fulfill our responsibilities as a member of the international community?
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The fact that we have responsibilities does not mean that we can ignore the rule of law and do whatever we choose.
> IWANAGA Mineichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Japan is largely dependent on the Middle East for its oil supplies; moreover, it could not survive without its relationships with other nations. If you oppose sending the Self-Defense Forces overseas, do you have an alternative proposal?
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We should strive to build a UN framework to support the reconstruction of Iraq. If we were to deploy the Self-Defense Forces in the service of an energy strategy, wouldn't that be exactly the same as prewar Japan's deployment of its army overseas to protect its own interests?
>> In concrete terms, for the present I propose taking a course of action similar to that of France and Germany.
> IWANAGA Mineichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With the whole world becoming involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, if Japan were to miss out, wouldn't it create a situation in which we would be isolated internationally?
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Can we really say that the whole world, including Europe, is unconditionally pouring resources into an occupation government which puts American interests first? I don't think we can say that.
> MASHIKO Teruhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> What Iraq actually wants from the international community is reconstruction in such areas as the water supply, medical care, and the system of governance. Thus, there is plenty of work that could be done without sending the Self-Defense Forces. Further, I do not agree that we will be isolated unless we send troops.
>> It seems to me that the governing parties have put together a rationale to justify after the fact their decision to deploy the Self-Defense Forces.
> OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In the present circumstances, it is only proper to send the Self-Defense Forces.
>> We should recognize that over thirty nations have in fact sent military contingents and over seventy nations are participating in the reconstruction conferences.
KUSUDA Daizo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As a member of the younger generation, I think that we should take the importance of the Constitution very seriously and be cautious about revising it.
>> With regard to international contributions, I think that in future we should realize our ideals in accordance with the principle of the centrality of the United Nations, even if Japan has to take the initiative in order to achieve this.
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
(To Mr. MASHIKO)
>> In that case, who would transport the materials needed for reconstruction? There are not many groups that are able to move freely amid this level of risk. The Self-Defense Forces are the right people for the job.
YOSHII Hidekatsu (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The rationale based on the national interest that we have been hearing today is dangerous. If the purpose of deployment is to take part in reconstruction business and secure oil rights, we will repeat the mistakes that Japan made before World War II.
>> What is needed, as soon as possible, is to restore Iraqi sovereignty, withdraw military forces, and organize reconstruction within a framework based on the United Nations. Japan should pursue diplomatic efforts to that end.
MASHIKO Teruhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(To Mr. NAKATANI)
>> What Iraq wants now, among other things, is engineers, materials, jobs, and restoration of public order. The Self-Defense Forces are not the only ones who can address these needs. There are things that Japan can do without sending the Self-Defense Forces.
>> Japanese personnel are not likely to be a terrorist target as long as they are transporting materials for the reconstruction of Iraq.
> NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The situation in Iraq is too dangerous for groups such as NPOs to operate there. Sending the Self-Defense Forces represents our commitment to do the necessary hard physical work. We cannot preserve our security while avoiding danger.
> OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The only way to deal with the risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks in Iraq is to send an organization like the Self-Defense Forces. If it were possible for volunteers to work under those conditions, perhaps the Democratic Party of Japan should send a volunteer group.
> MASHIKO Teruhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Is it not true that, according to the Special Measures Law for Iraq, the Self-Defense Forces will be sent to a "noncombat area" which is considered "secure"?
> NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is not claimed that the area is "secure." A "noncombat area" is one in which no combat is occurring, and "combat" refers to states exercising their right of belligerency and causing casualties.
> AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> The events in Iraq are a challenge to civilization and an attempt to destroy order. We must respond by expressing the will of the nation.
>> A wide array of activities is needed to support the reconstruction of Iraq. We should not place the emphasis solely on deploying the Self-Defense Forces.
> YOSHII Hidekatsu (Japanese Communist Party)
>> That we are opposed to terrorism goes without saying. The occupation government in Iraq should be ended, popular sovereignty should be restored, and reconstruction should be carried out in a framework centered on the United Nations.
> OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> First, we should carry out humanitarian assistance as provided for by the Special Measures Law for Iraq.