Second Open Hearing

Thursday, May 13, 2004

An open hearing was held on matters concerning the Constitution of Japan. After statements were heard from persons who volunteered to speak at the hearing (hereafter, "speakers"), questions were put to them.

Speakers

Members who put questions

Main points of statements by speakers

YOSHIDA Kenichi

>> The war launched in Iraq by the United States is an illegal war which does not fulfill the conditions for the use of force recognized by the UN Charter, namely, either self-defense or the existence of a UN resolution. The dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq for the purpose of cooperating in this illegal war is a violation of Article 9 and Article 98, Paragraph 2.

>> The movement to "amend" Article 9 for the purpose of exercising the right of collective self-defense is very problematic. If such an "amendment" goes through, the Constitution of Japan will cease to be a peace constitution.

>> The government is not abiding by its own explanation concerning the constitutionality of the overseas dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces. This shows disregard for the very foundation of constitutional government. If an "amendment" of Article 9 is carried out under these circumstances, participation in wars and the use of force overseas will be widely accepted in the name of international cooperation, and the result will be to open the way to war. That is simply unacceptable.

>> The judiciary has criticized the government's passive attitude to the violation of human rights represented by various forms of public nuisance caused by military bases. The government is nevertheless pursuing "emergency-response legislation" which greatly restricts fundamental human rights and infringes local autonomy, at the risk of causing the collapse of the very foundations of popular sovereignty and democracy.

>> There is a worldwide trend today toward resolving conflicts through cooperation among nations, without resorting to force, and "amending" Article 9 would run counter to this trend. The challenge for Japan is to realize the pacifist principles of its Constitution and to strive to achieve peaceful international relations without relying on military means.

>> There are moves to make express provision for such new rights as environmental rights and the right to privacy by means of constitutional "amendments," but we should think first about implementing the existing Constitution by making the fundamental human rights that are guaranteed therein more substantial and putting those provisions into practice.

>> I would like to see the Research Commission on the Constitution carry out a more complete investigation, for example, by heeding the voices of citizens who are in favor of protecting the existing Constitution, and by considering positive proposals for putting the Constitution into practice.


ANBO Katsuya

>> Rapid technological advances are changing the world. In discussing a constitution for the new era, first we need to gather information about the progress of technology.

>> As no nation exists today that can directly challenge the United States in a conventional war, "asymmetric" means of warfare, such as suicide bombing, cyberterrorism, and cyberweapons, will come to the fore as means of opposing the United States.

>> To combat cyber war, we need to (a) establish a new "Ministry of Information" to gather information; (b) train personnel to analyze information; (c) discover highly talented people.

>> Steps were taken to improve legislation at the level of obtaining information with the Communications Interception Law passed in 1999, but legislation still needs to be consolidated at the level of retaining information. Further, an anti-espionage law for state secrets should be enacted, and Article 21 should also be revised while respecting its intent.

>> In Article 9, we should incorporate statements to the effect that "the national armed forces shall consist of four forces, a cyber force, army, navy, and air force; their mission shall be to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Japan, to protect its territory, and to safeguard the fundamental human rights of the people," and that "the basic principles of military organization shall be laid down by an organization law, and the government may take necessary measures in a state of emergency as provided by law."

>> In the Preamble of the Constitution, we should incorporate statements to the effect that "domestically, the peace of the nation shall be guaranteed and the welfare of the people promoted," that "the people shall be prepared to defend their homeland from external threat, but Japan hereby declares that it renounces wars of aggression," and that "in an international community based on justice and order, Japan shall encourage and assist participation in international organizations in order to make contributions to international peace cooperation in keeping with the nation's strength."


HIDAKA Sayaka

>> I believe it is important to ensure that the ideals proclaimed in the Preamble take root.

>> One could say that the background to the Preamble and Article 9 was formed by the historical trend toward outlawing war, beginning with the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, together with the lessons learned from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>> The Preamble's statement about the "right to live in peace" points toward what is now known as "human security." As I see it, this is a provision that was ahead of its time.

>> Today, the pacifist principles set forth in the Preamble and Article 9 are becoming powerful ideals guiding the international community. They are characterized by the following points: (a) an awareness that governments are the actors primarily responsible for causing wars; (b) the renunciation by states of the use of violence in all its forms; (c) the denial of a right of belligerency and also the maintenance of war potential; (d) the adoption of an approach centered on the United Nations, and of security that does not rely on military means; (e) the guarantee of the right to live in peace. I believe that the realization of these ideals is the greatest task of government.

>> For the sake of world peace and stability, Japan is called to make efforts that are completely consistent with the Constitution's pacifist principles and with demilitarization, centered on the United Nations and directed toward creating a social system in which the people of the world can live with hope. The right to live in peace is crucial to this approach.

>> Japan can make active contributions to the peace and stability of the world for the very reason that it has proclaimed the right to live in peace in its Constitution.

>> I do not believe that we can build a peaceful society by revising the Preamble or Article 9. Indeed, we should be proud of the fact that Japan was right to clearly renounce war, ahead of the rest of the world.

>> Rather than revising the Constitution on the grounds that there is a gap between its ideals and reality, what is called for is to bring the reality closer to the ideals of the Constitution.

>> I firmly believe that the only proper path is to value the spirit of the Constitution and hand it on to future generations.


Main points of questions to the speakers

OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To all speakers)

>> I sense a common thread, namely, that this Commission should review the Constitution in keeping with the times. How do you view future political tasks relating to the Constitution, such as the enactment of a national referendum law and relaxation of the requirements in the amendment procedure?

(To Mr. YOSHIDA)

>> I think that the public has certain needs that involve revising the Constitution, such as making explicit provision for environmental rights and the right to privacy, and converting to a unicameral parliamentary system. Thus, I believe that there are clauses other than Article 9 that should be revised. What is your view in this regard?

(To all speakers)

>> What role should Japan play amid the changing international situation? Also, I think that we should revise the Constitution in order to protect the peace and security of Japan. Do you agree?

(To Mr. YOSHIDA)

>> I would like to ask your views on three points: (a) joint missile defense with the United States; (b) the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty; (c) the status of the Self-Defense Forces when Article 9 is observed.


TAKEMASA Koichi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To Mr. YOSHIDA and Ms. HIDAKA)

>> Critics say that the Japanese courts are not active in deciding questions of constitutionality. I think we need to establish a Constitutional Court to ensure that the rule of law is carried through. What are your views in this regard?

(To Mr. YOSHIDA)

>> I think that the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement should be revised. The Foreign Ministry has agreed to permit a lawyer to be present during questioning of criminal offenders who belong to the U.S. military forces by reforming the application of the Agreement, but why is this treatment being accorded only to the U.S. forces?

(To Mr. YOSHIDA and Ms. HIDAKA)

>> When the Self-Defense Forces were dispatched to Iraq, the Prime Minister emphasized reconciling the Japan-U.S. alliance and international cooperation. In terms of the constitutional debate, however, only international cooperation is provided for in the Constitution, and the two concepts cannot be considered on the same level. How do you view the relationship between the Japan-U.S. alliance and international cooperation?

(To Mr. ANBO)

>> Many countries are not proceeding with ratification of the Convention on Cybercrime because of problems concerning the secrecy of communications and privacy. What are your views on this point?

>> I agree that a "Ministry of Information" is needed, but in light of the existing situation in which, because of the adverse effects of a compartmentalized administration, information relating to crisis management does not reach the Prime Minister, the Chief Cabinet Secretary and other top officials as it should, I think that civilian control will be extremely important in establishing such a ministry. I would like to hear your views on this point.


FUKUSHIMA Yutaka (New Komeito)

(To Ms. HIDAKA)

>> You mentioned that Article 9 adopts the approach of cooperation with UN peace efforts, but in actual fact, among other problems, there is still a clause in the UN Charter that identifies Japan as a former enemy state. In light of this situation, what do you think needs to be done to bring the United Nations closer to the ideal?

(To Ms. HIDAKA and Mr. YOSHIDA)

>> Contributing actively as a nation to realizing "human security" is the stance that Japan should take in the international community of the 21st century. Thus, I suggest that we should add a third paragraph to Article 9 stipulating international contributions, partly in order to clarify the ideas set forth in the Preamble. Would you like to comment?

(To Mr. ANBO)

>> I agree that we need to be prepared for a cyber war, but isn't cyber war essentially different from the use of force and resolving disputes between nations? How do you see the relationship between a cyber force and conventional military forces?

>> Some observers fear that, in readiness for a cyber war, we may become a "Big Brother" society in which the military controls the nation's information and communication networks in the name of combating terrorism. What do you think is necessary to ensure that this does not happen?


YOSHII Hidekatsu (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Mr. YOSHIDA and Ms. HIDAKA)

>> I think that in the 21st century the UN Charter and Article 9 will shine forth, as it will become possible to maintain regional peace by enhancing diplomatic strength and not by relying on military power. In my view, the provisions of the Japanese Constitution, which do not rely on military power, have a very great significance. What do you think about the status, role, and significance of the Constitution of Japan in the world?

(To Mr. YOSHIDA)

>> One argument for revising the Constitution is that we should write in new provisions on environmental rights, etc. In my view, however, rather than changing the Constitution to meet a particular situation at a given time, we should deal with particular situations by putting the existing Constitution into practice, and the absence of any demand by environmentalists for the creation of environmental rights seems to support this view. Further, it seems to me that the true aim of those who argue that we should change the Constitution to bring it into line with reality is to revise Article 9. What are your views on these points?

>> Some argue for changing the Constitution even as they continue to expand its interpretation beyond the Japan-U.S. security structure to include participation and cooperation in recent U.S. military operations. This view is mistaken. I question whether it is permissible for politics to overstep the bounds of the Constitution in this way, and I would like to hear your thoughts in this regard.

>> I think that the public nuisance created by U.S. military bases represents an intolerable violation of human rights or denial of environmental rights. What are your views on this point?


DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)

(To Mr. YOSHIDA)

>> Germany's Basic Law contains military provisions; the Constitution of Japan does not. Nevertheless, Japan has sent its Self-Defense Forces to Iraq, while Germany contends that a new UN resolution is necessary to sanction military action in Iraq. Do you have any thoughts on these differences?

(To all speakers)

>> It distresses me whenever I see articles in the press or attend conferences where foreign observers comment that Japan has no clear national vision. In this connection, I would like to hear your ideas of a vision for Japan in the 21st century.

>> If you have any thoughts on how the open hearings of this Commission should be conducted, I would like to hear them.