Meeting Agenda
Matters concerning security and international cooperation (integration of nation-states, accession to international organizations, and the accompanying transfer of sovereign powers, with special reference to the European Constitution, the constitutions of EU member states, and an "EU force")
After a statement was heard from Ambassador Bernhard ZEPTER concerning the above matters, questions were put to him. This was followed by free discussion among the members.
Informant
- Bernhard ZEPTER, Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the European Commission in Japan
Members who put questions to Ambassador ZEPTER
- NAKAYAMA Taro (Chairman of the Commission)
- SENGOKU Yoshito (Deputy Chairman of the Commission)
- SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
- YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
- DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
Main points of Ambassador ZEPTER's statement
1. The historical background to the process of European integration
>> "Never war between us" was the key lesson that the Europeans learned from the two world wars. This lesson guided the European unification project, which created in Europe an area of peace, stability, and economic prosperity.
>> To meet the challenges of the enlargement and integration of the European Union, numerous treaty changes were required. After completion of the Single/Internal Market, steps to establish a common foreign and security policy, monetary integration, and other stages, the EU is now deeply involved in discussions about the adoption of the draft of a Constitution.
2. The achievements of the European integration process
>> The main achievements of European integration can be summarized as follows: (a) the completion of a single market; (b) the introduction of the euro; (c) the adoption of a common trade policy; (d) the disbursement of financial resources to regions of Member States through several funds; (e) cooperation in the field of common foreign and security policy; (f) cooperation in the fields of internal and judicial affairs such as migration policy.
3. The fundamentals of the EU and its institutional setting
>> The EU is a hybrid between a nation state and an international organization, pooling parts of national sovereignty in some fields while simply carrying on intergovernmental cooperation in others.
>> There is no pre-ordained blueprint. The development of the EU is a "bottom up" process, built on common interest in certain policy areas.
>> Presently, the EU is basically built on three pillars: (1) integrated policies ("Community policies"); (2) the common foreign and security policy; (3) police and judicial cooperation.
>> In shaping EU law, the "Community method" is adopted. This attempts to strike an appropriate balance between the powers of the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Commission, and implies that none of these institutions can act without the assistance of the others. The European Court of Justice is also a key component of the Community method.
4. The principles underlying EU integration
>> Three principles constitute the driving force of EU integration: the cooperation which reinforces Europe's architecture and framework; the competition which stimulates and enhances efficiency; and the solidarity which strengthens unity between the Member States.
>> European lawmaking relies on a set of principles including: (a) the primacy of EU law over national law; (b) subsidiarity and proportionality, which ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen.
5. The key policy areas for cooperation, the common trade policy, common foreign and security policy (CFSP), and common defense
>> To rebalance economic disparities within Europe and improve competitiveness, newcomers to the EU have received quite substantial financial assistance.
>> Attempts have been made to increase Member States' commitment to act in common on foreign policy issues, but, as seen during the Iraq war, these have not been a success. The Draft Constitution provides for the appointment of a "Foreign Minister of the EU," and for joint action in case of terrorist attack or natural or manmade disaster.
6. National constitutions and the transfer of sovereign powers
>> Integration and enlargement of the European Union required a process of constitutional adaptation on the part of the Member States. In most cases, their accession to the EU was based on their respective constitutional provisions which enable the transfer of sovereign powers to international organizations. The integration and enlargement of the Union process would not have been possible without political and social cultures that accepted the partial transfer of national sovereignty to the EU.
7. The Draft Constitution and its contents
>> The Draft Constitution confirms the Union's specificity as a legal entity in its own right, and strengthens the Union's democratic legitimacy by establishing a clear political co-responsibility between the legislative and the executive power. As a foundation for further integration, it puts a special focus on the need for a European identity, and it provides a more transparent and comprehensive institutional and legal structure by, among other things, abolishing the cumbersome "three-pillar structure."
8. In conclusion
>> I think that it is simply not possible to translate the European model directly into a model for other parts of the world, as the European experience is closely linked to the history, the geography and the cultural foundation of the European continent. But there are certainly lessons to learn, particularly as far as the method and procedures of integration are concerned. The method in the European Union's case consists of identifying specific problems and challenges which a nation state cannot efficiently cope with alone: among these are to create political stability in a region and secure peace, and to broaden the economic base and enhance competitiveness.
Main points of questions and comments to Ambassador ZEPTER
NAKAYAMA Taro (Chairman)
>> I would like to ask how the fact that the existing EU member states share common values relates to further expansion of the EU. I would also like to ask about the relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Constitution, which includes a "Charter of Fundamental Rights."
>> Please describe how member states have explored cooperation in the security area and indicate the EU's future course in this area. Also, please describe the relationship between NATO and the EU in terms of their security and defense policies.
>> It seems that the EU has always had a focus on cooperative ties among European nations in the area of security. I would like to hear your views on regional security in Asia and the effectiveness of ASEM, which brings together Asian nations and EU member nations, among others.
>> National referendums are held to decide such questions as whether to ratify the Treaty on European Union and whether to take part in monetary union. Please tell us about the role played by national referendums and their strengths and weaknesses.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Deputy Chairman)
>> Am I correct in understanding that the European Ombudsman for which the Draft Constitution provides will be an agency created under the European Constitution? Further, this could be approached in various ways, such as creating ombudsmen in each member state or region. What is the EU planning to do?
>> The Draft Constitution provides for an independent body to protect personal information. What sort of body is envisioned?
>> In the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union" (Part II of the Draft Constitution), Articles 2 and 3, among others, could be said to make concrete provision for rights which have previously come under the heading of new human rights and those relating to "the right to the pursuit of happiness," and to treat them as fundamental human rights. What was the theoretical basis for deciding to make this kind of provision for these rights?
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
>> I have the feeling that European integration is progressing faster than anticipated. What are the factors behind this?
>> We are debating which to pursue in the Japanese Constitution: universality, or particularity and authenticity to Japanese origins. In that connection, I would like to ask what makes up the "European identity" which you cited as the linchpin of European integration. Also, I think a constitution is meaningless unless it is particular and authentic to its local origins; would you agree?
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> You emphasized a resolve never again to go to war in Europe as the historical background to European integration. How does the Draft Constitution reflect the way that Europe has dealt with Nazi war crimes, reparations to victims, and similar questions?
>> You cited positions on the Iraq war as an example of failure to take joint action on foreign policy issues, but what lessons have been learned from such disagreements? Also, the "European Security Strategy" adopted last year emphasizes UN-centered multilateralism over unilateralism. Is there a lesson here with regard to the Iraq war?
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> European integration requires a transfer of sovereign powers, giving rise to an unprecedented view of the state. The concept of a constitution changes, because the European Constitution, which is international law, will have primacy over the national constitutions of member states. How do EU members perceive these changes in the view of the nation-state and its constitution?
>> You spoke with warmth and determination of the desire that there be no more wars. I feel the same way, and I was moved by your words. Among the EU member states, there are some whose constitutions repudiate war, as in, for example, Article 11 of the Italian Constitution. Did the framers of the draft European Constitution consider carrying over provisions of this kind? Further, is the EU prepared to adopt a clause repudiating war in its Constitution?
Main points of comments by members in the free discussion (in order of presentation)
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Compared to the European security structure, whose framework is doubled and redoubled, the present situation in Asia is far from reassuring, as Japan relies entirely on bilateral treaties, mainly with the United States, for security in its environs. Japan should think through its national position on collective security and the right of collective self-defense, and study what it should do to ensure regional stability.
>> Listening to Ambassador ZEPTER, I felt that we need to create a security mechanism in East Asia and establish mutual rules covering preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping operations.
>> If Japan is to lead the way in creating a security structure in East Asia, we should recognize the right of collective self-defense and collective security in the Constitution.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is only natural that the EU framework cannot be translated directly into a model for other parts of the world. In thinking about a security structure in Asia, I would suggest that the important thing is to have a common foundation for security.
>> The role that Japan chooses to play in its relationships with
other Asian nations is important. In deciding this, it seems to me that
we cannot ignore relations with China, which is taking on increasing weight
in both security and economic terms.
TAKEMASA Koichi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Germany's Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the prior approval of the Bundestag is necessary each time German forces are deployed outside the NATO region. I think that a system that requires prior parliamentary approval in such a thorough way is a good model.
KUSUDA Daizo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In Asia, we should likewise start by forging common ideals and partnerships in the economic and environmental spheres, and then discuss security issues after a relationship of trust has been formed. We must not go about it in the wrong order.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> I agree with Ambassador ZEPTER's point that, instead of unilateralism, what is needed is a multilateral system centered on the United Nations.
>> As I see it, the integration of Europe has its basis in a desire never to make war again, together with respect for human rights. In Asia, where there are problems including Japan's responsibility for a war of aggression, the present situation should be studied carefully from the perspective of the results in Europe.
(To Mr. NAKATANI)
>> The right of collective self-defense and collective security are two different things. With regard to the former, two-thirds of the world's nations belong to no military alliances, and they therefore do not possess such a "right to attack." The global trend lies in a different direction. Japan's thinking about regional security must be rooted in the Constitution.
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Deputy Chairman)
>> The region needs a common security and defense policy in order to maintain peace and achieve the rule of law. There can be no regional security if, like Mr. YAMAGUCHI, we start from the position that Japan cannot do what this requires because of the Constitution. We cannot ensure our security and peace by insisting on fixed values of our own and refusing to create common security and a common sense of values.
> YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Article 9 proclaims pacifist principles, and Japan should take that position, even in the talks on security in Northeast Asia. The argument that dialogue is impossible if we take that position is untenable.
> NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I am afraid that the approach that stubbornly adheres to the existing Constitution may not work for much longer. The members of NATO and the EU take the approach of coexisting on the basis of the right of collective self-defense, and unless Japan also adopts such a view, we will be unable to free ourselves of U.S. influence, and we will have no security options. For the sake of our independence, flexibility, and strategic capacity as a nation, we need a multilateral security system that can take the place of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. From that viewpoint, collective security should be discussed by this Commission.
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Deputy Chairman)
>> While my conclusions are not so very different from those of Mr. NAKATANI, I would like to point out that some of those who advocate recognizing the exercise of the right of collective self-defense actually prefer military pressure to dialogue, and they would like to revise the Constitution to make it possible for Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense jointly with the United States anywhere in the world. This cannot be permitted.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> The principle of the primacy of international law over national law is an internal question for the EU to decide, and is not relevant to Japan.
>> With regard to the relationship between the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Constitution, since a treaty and a constitution have different sources of law, we should not consider one superior to the other; instead, we should take the standpoint that the supreme law of Japan is the Constitution.
(To Mr. NAKATANI)
>> NATO, which sanctions the right of collective self-defense, arose under conditions quite unlike those of Japan-U.S. relations today, i.e., it came into being during the Cold War and served as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
(To Mr. NAKATANI)
>> If you recognize that Japan is under U.S. influence and that this restricts us in security matters, it is important to consider the option of casting off the yoke of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and returning to pacifism under the Constitution.
NAKAYAMA Taro (Chairman)
>> One problem in creating regional security for Japan is the lack of energy resources in the vicinity. Moreover, Japan is isolated in that it does not have a network of pipelines or other facilities.
>> A stable energy supply is a problem for the region as a whole. The energy question and security are two sides of the same coin. The time has come for a rational discussion of regional security in Northeast Asia.
The following comment was made by Subcommittee Chairman KONDO Motohiko:
>> In my Report as Chairman of this Subcommittee at the February 26 session of the Commission, when I stated "I think there is a need to form a consensus without delay on the constitutional questions that are raised by the points of contention," the intended meaning was that I think there is a need to clarify the constitutional questions that are raised by the points of contention. To amplify this further, I meant that there is a need to clarify, through debate, where the constitutional questions lie in regard to points of contention over Article 9, such as whether to recognize the right of collective self-defense and whether to allow participation in collective security.