Meeting Agenda
1.Resignation of director and appointment of replacement
NAKAGAWA Masaharu was appointed director from among the Commission members,
upon the resignation of SUZUKI Katsumasa as director; both are members
of the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents.
2.Matters relating to a motion for approval of holding Open Hearings
Dates: Thursday, November 11, 2004; Thursday, November 18, 2004; Thursday,
November 25, 2004
3.Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
Chairman NAKAYAMA, as the mission leader, presented a brief report on the findings of the Study Mission on the Constitutions of the European Union, Sweden and Finland; the report was followed by comments from members of the group and by free discussion.
Outline of the Study Mission on the Constitutions of the European Union, Sweden and Finland
1.Composition of the study mission
Leader: NAKAYAMA Taro
Members: FUNADA Hajime, SENGOKU Yoshito, EDANO Yukio, YASUOKA Okiharu, NAKATANI Gen, KONDO Motohiko
2.Period
13 days, from Sunday, September 5 to Friday, September 17, 2004
3.Mission destinations
Sweden: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI); Parliament; a former parliamentary ombudsman; Ministry of Justice, etc.
Finland: Administration Committee, Employment and Equality Committee and Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament, etc.
Belgium: Council of the European Union; European Commission; Dr. Jean-Luc DEHAENE, Vice-President of the European Convention
France: European Court of Human Rights; European Parliament; European Ombudsman; Antonio VITORINO, Member of the European Commission responsible for Justice and Home Affairs
4.Outline of the study
- Outline of the study in Sweden
[1] Main points of meeting with the director, Alyson J.K. BAILES, and staff of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
>> The mission heard an outline of the organization and activities of SIPRI, an independent research institute established by the Swedish government in 1966 to work for world peace.
>> Points were raised by Mr. NAKATANI concerning the attitudes of states to terrorism and to ethnic minorities, by Mr. FUNADA concerning Turkish accession to the EU and understanding the Islamic world, and by Mr. YASUOKA concerning how those present viewed Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution in terms of international security and peace building.
[2] Main points of meeting with Tommy WAIDELICH, Chairman of the Parliament's Advisory Committee on EU Affairs
>> Sweden, which had always maintained a firm policy of neutrality, decided to join the EU when the security situation was altered by the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the fall of the Berlin Wall around 1990. However, the public is uneasy at the idea of the Swedish Parliament's powers being transferred too rapidly to the EU.
>> Sweden will ratify the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe by a decision of Parliament, without a national referendum. Among other reasons, this is because the treaty is a distillation of various existing EU and EC agreements.
[3] Main points of meeting with Per WESTERBERG, First Deputy Speaker of the Swedish Parliament, and Jan PENNLÖV, former parliamentary ombudsman
>> Among other points, Mr. WESTERBERG explained that (a) Sweden changed from a bicameral to a unicameral parliament in 1971 to create a completely democratic system in which changes in public opinion can be reflected directly in the composition of parliament; (b) the adoption of a unicameral system did not noticeably reduce the time taken for deliberation of bills, but it did away with the complexities of forming a majority under a bicameral system and thus simplified the passage of legislation.
>> Mr. PENNLÖV explained the powers and functions of the parliamentary ombudsmen, noting that (a) administrative oversight is the joint responsibility of the ombudsmen and a parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, but whereas the Committee oversees the Cabinet and ministers, the ombudsmen oversee all administrative personnel, including those of local governments; (b) the four ombudsmen work independently of one another, dividing up their duties; besides conducting investigations in response to complaints from the general public, they also make personal inspection visits to check that local governments are performing their duties appropriately; (c) when they discover that duties have been performed improperly, they may recommend corrective action, and they also have the power to bring criminal charges, like public prosecutors.
[4] Main points of meeting with Bo KÖNBERG, Member of Parliament and former Minister of Health and Social Affairs, and Göte WAHLSTRÖM, Member of Parliament
>> The mission heard detailed explanations of the structure of Sweden's social security system, centered on the pension system, and its immigration policies, including such aspects as education for migrants and the crime rate.
>> Mr. NAKAYAMA, as leader of the group, explained various issues involved in Japan's social security system, providing statistical data on such points as trends in average life expectancy, changes in the birthrate, and the public contribution to social security. This was followed by an exchange of views on problems common to the two countries.
[5] Main points of meeting with Thomas BODSTRÖM, Minister of Justice
>> The mission exchanged views with Mr. BODSTRÖM, who is responsible for the four Basic Laws (Sweden's constitution), on topics ranging from female succession to the throne to Internet crime.
>> The law governing succession to the Swedish throne was revised in 1979, prompted by the fact that the eldest child of the present king was a girl and by the desire to ensure gender equality. It was decided that the throne should pass to the eldest child, regardless of gender. Sweden was the first European monarchy to adopt this order of succession.
- Outline of the study in Finland
[1] Main points of meeting with Matti VÄISTÖ, chair, Veijo PUHJO, vice chair, and members of the Administration Committee of Parliament
>> The mission heard explanations of provisions in the Constitution, which was revised completely in 2000, concerning (a) the right of access to information held by public agencies, and (b) restrictions relating to pictorial programs that are necessary for the sound development of children.
>> There was an exchange of views on issues relating to the right of access to information and the protection of personal data in Finland; this included an outline of the basic system for access to public information, and a discussion of the interception of communications in the investigation of serious crimes, etc.
[2] Main points of meeting with Jukka GUSTAFSSON, chair, and members of the Employment and Equality Committee of Parliament
>> The mission heard explanations and exchanged views on the problems posed by a falling birthrate and aging population, and on the present state of gender equality in society.
>> Finland ranks at or near the top in international comparisons of academic skills. Behind this excellence lies a suprapartisan national consensus in favor of giving the highest priority to education.
[3] Main points of meeting with Arto SATONEN and other members of the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament
>> In addition to being the parliamentary body that reviews the constitutionality of laws, the Constitutional Law Committee also oversees the actions of the executive branch and provides a check on the other administrative oversight agencies, namely, the attorney general and the parliamentary ombudsman.
>> The institution of the attorney general independently monitors and oversees the legality of administrative execution and related matters from within the Cabinet; the Attorney General attends Cabinet meetings. The institution of the parliamentary ombudsman, on the other hand, monitors the legality of administrative execution and the state of compliance with human rights from the perspective of the Parliament. Their jurisdictions overlap to some extent, but they have functioned well over their long history.
[4] Main points of meeting with Kimmo KILJUNEN, Member of Parliament and national parliamentary delegate to the European Constitutional Convention
>> Bearing in mind such factors as the presence of Russia as an Eastern power, Finland emphasizes the EU in its security capacity as well as its economic capacity and sees its recent expansion into the former Eastern Europe as very significant.
>> Mr. KILJUNEN evaluated the Constitutional Treaty for Europe positively, saying that it furthers the democratization of the EU by strengthening its policy-making processes and making them more transparent, but he explained that the aim is not to create a federal state like the United States of America.
- Outline of the survey related to the Constitutional Treaty for Europe in
Brussels and Strasbourg
[1] Itinerary
Focusing on the topic "The constitutional and political meaning of the Constitutional Treaty," the mission heard comments from the following officials:
(a) Constitutional Convention: Jean-Luc DEHAENE, Vice-President (former Prime Minister of Belgium)
(b) Council of the European Union: Jean-Claude PIRIS, legal adviser
(c) European Commission: Antonio VITORINO, European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs; Fernando VALENZUELA, Deputy Director-General for External Relations; Pieter VAN NUFFEL, Head of the Task Force on the Future of the Union
(d) European Parliament: Ìñigo MENDEZ DE VIGO, president, and Klaus HÄNSCH and Andrew DUFF, vice-presidents of the European Parliamentary delegation to the Convention; Jo LEINEN, chairperson of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs; Elmar BROK, chairperson of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and Georg JARZEMBOWSKI, chairperson of the Delegation for Relations with Japan
(e) The European Ombudsman: P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
(f) European Court of Human Rights (an institution separate from the EU): Justice Luzius WILDHABER, President
[2] Features of the Constitutional Treaty and the reasons for its enactment
>> The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is an international treaty concluded by sovereign states, but it differs from ordinary international treaties in some respects, such as (a) the fact that certain decisions by a special majority of the EU, in fields under its sole jurisdiction, are binding on member governments; (b) the inclusion of a legally binding "Charter of Fundamental Rights" corresponding to a Bill of Rights at the level of a national constitution.
>> Asked whether the future of EU integration lies in a federal state or a federation of sovereign states, many of those interviewed said that the EU is not a state, but that there are two schools of thought within the organization: the federalists, who want to create a framework of a federal type as quickly as possible, and the intergovernmentalists, who want closer ties within a framework of intergovernmental relations. It was the federalists who actively promoted the Constitutional Treaty.
>> The Constitutional Treaty makes the EU an independent legal entity with a permanent president and foreign minister.
>> A Constitutional Treaty was enacted at this time not only to avert the difficulties in the internal policy-making process that are likely to result from the EU's recent expansion, but also to ensure that European citizens can readily understand the Constitution.
[3] Procedural features of the drafting of the Constitutional Treaty
>> Dr. DEHAENE, Vice-President of the Convention, explained that the new Convention had a solid Europe-wide foundation as it was attended not only by delegates from the national governments but also by delegates from the national parliaments, the European Parliament, and the European Commission, and observers from NPOs and NGOs, and this made it possible to tackle various issues directly.
[4] Issues involved in the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty
>> Many countries, including Britain and France, will hold a national referendum on whether to ratify the Treaty, but the outcome is unpredictable as the public will be voting not only on the Treaty itself, but also for or against their own government and current domestic issues.
>> Dr. JARZEMBOWSKI noted that when governments hold national referendums it is important that they make efforts to explain the Treaty's characteristics and goals clearly to the public.
[5] Main points of meetings with the European Ombudsman and the European Court of Human Rights
>> The European Ombudsman, Mr. DIAMANDOUROS, explained that: (a) ombudsman systems are established to complement the existing law-abiding spirit of the people and a strong, independent judicial system; (b) they offer alternative ways of resolving an ever-wider range of disputes and grievances, thereby increasing the citizens' options; (c) it is essential that their work be independent, both in name and in reality; (d) provision for an ombudsman system should preferably be made in the text of the nation's constitution.
>> Justice WILDHABER, President of the European Court of Human Rights, explained and exchanged views on such matters as the Court's relationship with the national courts and the EU Court of Justice, and the effectiveness of its rulings.
- Conclusions
>> Our visits to these nations and organizations brought home to us that, in each case, the public is engaging in a nationwide debate that links the ideal form of the constitution directly to a vision for the nation, and that within the EU this wide-ranging debate is being conducted from the pan-European viewpoint of a supranational "citizen of Europe."
Main points of comments by mission members (in order of presentation)
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The EU has already set up rapid-response forces and made provision in the Constitutional Treaty to increase its armaments, but all those with whom we spoke were unanimous in saying that the EU aims to be a peaceful power, not a military one, and that it is proceeding on the condition that it will abide by the UN Charter. Large-scale conflicts will be handled by NATO, while the rapid-response forces will be responsible for regional peace-building. I found it moving that the victors and the defeated nations of World War II have created and deployed a joint force and achieved a historic reconciliation.
>> In discussing the aims and functions of the Constitutional Treaty, many EU officials said that it is based on a recognition of the importance of the rule of law. The post of European Ombudsman has been created to handle complaints which no administrative agencies are geared to handle, complaints relating to the exercise of official discretionary powers, tenders, and public procurement, and complaints by the general public about access to information and related issues. I believe that Japan, too, needs a system of this kind to back up democracy and the guarantee of human rights.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> A number of points incorporated in the Constitutional Treaty, such as the appointment of an EU president and foreign minister and strengthening of the common foreign policy and security policy, deserve attention as a new democratic initiative, as they can be seen as a partial transfer of sovereignty or a shift to a partial federal system. Also, Sweden and Finland have adopted a special stance in that they do not intend to hold referendums on the Treaty and, although they will take part in the rapid-response forces, they are maintaining a certain distance by remaining outside NATO.
>> There was some concern that the nature of the EU itself may change as it continues to expand and admit countries with relatively low-level economies; how the EU overcomes this will bear watching. Many with whom we spoke were not in favor of admitting Turkey, but I am inclined to think that Turkey should be admitted for the sake of diversity and flexibility, even if this means lowering the bar for accession.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I had the impression that the EU is approaching such epoch-making events as transfers of sovereignty and ratification of the Constitutional Treaty in a quite relaxed mood, confident in the course that history is taking. In the background, I sensed that the energy behind integration comes from a recognition that terrorism and related threats are difficult for nations to deal with alone, and from European frustration with American unilateralism.
>> Given that Japan cannot face the terrorist threat on its own, and when one considers the presence of the United States and China, Japan is in a similar situation to the EU nations which find themselves between the United States and Russia. Taking the members of the EU as an example, we should develop a vision of Japan's future with the emphasis on cooperation with other Asian nations.
>> Sweden's ombudsmen have considerable authority as they are elected unanimously by Parliament. In Finland, the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament screens laws for constitutionality, with the emphasis on logical reasoning. If Japan is to guarantee the rule of law, it is important to consider measures from a perspective other than majority rule and the confrontation of two major parties, such as the introduction of an ombudsman whose powers would be backed by the authority of the Diet, and the creation of a Constitutional Law Committee whose commitment to the Constitution would have a different perspective from that of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The comments of Ms. BAILES, director of SIPRI, on Japan's security policy as viewed from Europe made a strong impression on me. She spoke highly of Japan's restrained security policy founded on pacifist principles, and the recent peacekeeping operations. I felt that we should think about revising the Constitution in such a way that we enhance and develop these pacifist principles in the future.
>> I agree with Ms. BAILES' comment that Japan, like Europe, has had to redesign its security policy as we can no longer depend on the United States, which now places more emphasis on the mobility of its forces than on defending other countries' territory. Japan should improve its defense structure in order to create a regional security system. Further, we should conduct an active debate on the use of force to build peace in Asia and the world.
Main points of comments in the free discussion (in order of presentation)
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The ombudsman system seems to be working in Europe, but if we are to make express provision for such a system in the Japanese Constitution, considerable discussion will be needed. The Scandinavian countries are welfare states with high benefits and a high tax burden, and there is a concomitant public demand for more control over the administration. There is also enough common ground to enable a parliament to elect its ombudsmen unanimously, and the appointees are highly conscious of their mission. I doubt whether this level of quality could be secured in Japan, and the relationship of the new post with existing institutions would also pose difficult problems. Moreover, there is a risk that by making express provision for the office in the Constitution we would restrict the scope of private-sector ombudsmen.
>> It is important that we in Japan should have the common understanding that we will shoulder the necessary risks to maintain our own and the world's peace. We must form a consensus on developing the military strength needed for peacekeeping. For the present, however, we should go only as far as revisions based on the largest common denominator of public opinion, such as making explicit provision for the Self-Defense Forces and international contributions in peaceful sectors. Any international contributions that go beyond that will require further debate.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Whereas American democracy is revealing its shallowness, democracy in Europe has deep historical and cultural roots. In discussing the Constitution, we should learn from the insights of Europe.
>> Security in East Asia is an issue that will not be solved solely by increasing Japan's military strength. We need to look beyond the framework of the nation-state in considering regional security.
>> In thinking about constitutional issues, it is important to ensure the rule of law, that is, to ensure that the ideals of the Constitution extend throughout the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Given the bloated state of government today, it is essential to maintain checks on the executive branch, and to achieve this, it is important to have a fully functional ombudsman and judiciary.
>> We should consider the issues facing Japan in light of the international criteria expressed in the accumulated judgments of the International Court of Justice, including its decision on the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, and in the principles of the Constitutional Treaty for Europe.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Overseas study missions are an excellent opportunity to soberly assess world trends and to appreciate anew the value of the Constitution of Japan.
>> UN Secretary-General Kofi ANNAN has called the U.S. war in Iraq an illegal war that violates international law and the UN Charter. In contrast to American unilateralism, the EU wants to maintain and strengthen the international order centered on the United Nations. Similar trends have appeared in Asia and Latin America as well as Europe. Thus, there is a growing movement in the 21st-century world toward a peaceful global order which permits neither terrorism nor illegal wars.
>> The UN Charter prohibits war by its member nations and seeks to create peace and stability through voluntary cooperation among nations. The Constitution of Japan is a concrete embodiment of this endeavor, and Article 9, Paragraph 2, which renounces the maintenance of war potential and the right of belligerency, is in the vanguard of world peace. The course embraced in Article 9 has taken on a new significance and power in the effort to establish peace in the world of the 21st century.
TANAKA Makiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Chairman NAKAYAMA's report gave me a good picture of the great efforts that Europe has made to build peace and international order. The EU's experience offers a wealth of suggestions as to what Japan can do in Northeast Asia to ensure the maintenance of peace, prevention of conflicts, and human security.
>> We should establish a system for national referendums in Japan. According to the report, eight or nine of the twenty-five EU members expect to hold a referendum before ratifying the Constitutional Treaty. I would like to hear the impressions of members of the mission as to how the status of national referendums and the role of the parliament were viewed in each country.
>NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman
>> National referendums are an expression of the importance placed on the rights of the people. One of the wellsprings of democracy lies in conducting referendums on questions that affect the state of the nation, such as its attitude to the Constitutional Treaty.
>> At a meeting of the directors of this Commission, we agreed to hold an investigation into national referendums at a meeting of the Research Commission on the Constitution to be held on October 28.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Finland's parliament has a Constitutional Law Committee to review the constitutionality of laws and related matters, as well as a Committee for the Future to think about the future of the nation. There are similar bodies for discussing the constitution in Sweden and the European Parliament. In enacting the Constitutional Treaty, first the future of Europe was discussed and then work was begun on coordinating proposals for the treaty. We in Japan should take note of this process, and after this Commission has finished its research, we should establish permanent bodies for constitutional debate in both chambers, to discuss the future of Japan and the form that the nation should take.
>> The ruling coalition is currently discussing both a National Referendum Bill, which lays down the procedure for constitutional amendments, and a partial revision of the Diet Law to create a successor organization to this Commission. We hope to have these ready by the time the Final Report is submitted. I understand that members of the Democratic Party of Japan also see the need for a permanent Committee on the Constitution, and I hope that this Commission will discuss the subject.
(In connection with the comment by Ms. TANAKA)
>> During the overseas survey mission, we were told that, when holding referendums on ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, "it is important to present the Treaty's principles and aims in plain terms to the public, rather than presenting them with the actual text." This point is relevant in enacting a National Referendum Law.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The EU was established within a unified civilization. It is not appropriate to contrast the EU's multilateralism with American unilateralism.
>> Bearing in mind that each nation in East Asia has its own civilization, while we should draw on the insights of the EU, it is important to pay attention to Japan's own unique culture and security situation.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> We should look for inspiration to systems like that of Finland and the EU, where the parliament, not the executive branch, has the primary right of interpreting the constitution. The situation here in Japan is a distortion, as interpretations by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau—a part of the executive branch—are treated as if they were set in stone. If we are going to establish a permanent Committee on the Constitution, its main purpose should be to relocate the primary right of interpretation of the Constitution from the Cabinet Legislation Bureau to the Diet.
(In connection with the comment by Ms. TANAKA)
>> The decision as to whether to hold a referendum on ratifying the Constitutional Treaty is related to the legal system and the status of the Constitutional Treaty in each country.
>> In some countries, I have heard, the Treaty could be voted down due to the influence of domestic issues on the referendum. I have the impression that we need to create a mechanism for national referendums that will ensure that voting on the issue at hand does not become mixed up with a vote of confidence in the government.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> In his comments, Mr. YASUOKA made a connection between trends in Europe and creating a Committee on the Constitution, but restraint should be exercised in applying the results of overseas survey missions directly to Japan.
>> We are told that, during the overseas survey, mission members from the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan discussed creating a permanent Committee on the Constitution. It is wrong to bring matters outside the proper scope of the overseas survey mission into this Commission.
>> We take the position that the Constitution's principles should be implemented fully in every area. To that end, every Diet committee should screen bills and oversee the administration from a constitutional viewpoint; there is no need to establish a Committee on the Constitution. Furthermore, as this proposal involves revising the Constitution and also touches on the composition of the two chambers, it should be debated in a forum other than this Commission, and it is not relevant to the Final Report.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> I agree with Mr. YAMAGUCHI. I think that the overseas survey mission was meaningful, but, properly speaking, an overseas survey should be undertaken not with the aim of revising the Constitution, but in order to bring out the Constitution's strengths.
>> The need for a permanent Committee on the Constitution is unclear, and I cannot see it. When the Cabinet sponsors a bill, it is taken for granted that its constitutionality will be judged based on the executive branch's interpretation of the Constitution, but the Diet, as the sole legislative branch, should be the judge. The existing Diet committees should thoroughly review whether affairs are being conducted according to the Constitution, including the constitutionality of treaties. I would like to ask what is meant by proposing to create a Committee on the Constitution when this kind of procedure has not been put in place.
> YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution created shortly after the war contains excellent principles and has contributed to the development of Japan and to world peace, but I question the present state of affairs, that is, the fact that we have left its interpretation entirely to the government and as a result the changes of sixty years have been glossed over.
>> We should establish a permanent Committee on the Constitution to conduct debate with a specific focus on constitutional questions.
>> It is our basic position that the Constitution should be reviewed, and I trust you will agree that it is only natural to conduct observations and express opinions from that viewpoint.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> In the view of New Komeito, at this point in time the creation of a Standing Committee on the Constitution must be approached more cautiously. It is important, first, to weigh the arguments heard to date in this Commission, and we would prefer a more measured pace.
(Comments)
>> I think that terrorism cannot be discussed on the same level before and after September 11, and I would like to ask whether Ms. BAILES of SIPRI made that distinction when she advocated measures such as improving social conditions in preference to solutions by force.
>> With regard to whether the EU's example is relevant to Japan and Asia, I am pessimistic about the prospects for a regional union in Asia, because China, Korea, and Japan all have strong ethnocentric tendencies.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> My comment about establishing a Committee on the Constitution was entirely my own personal view. The Democratic Party of Japan has not adopted an official position on this question, nor are we discussing it with other parties.
>> Even if a standing committee were established, it would be meaningless if it merely discussed constitutional issues before sending the bills to other committees. What would be meaningful, I suggest, is a committee that serves as a forum for Diet members to discuss questions of constitutionality among themselves, without the Cabinet Legislation Bureau and the rest of the executive branch.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It makes no sense, to begin with, to have the Cabinet Legislation Bureau reply when the constitutionality of a law is being decided in committee. The Diet should make that decision.
>> I suggest that this Commission hold sessions on how to determine constitutionality and the role of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. AKAMATSU)
>> Ms. BAILES was referring to terrorism in general; she was not thinking in terms of the September 11 attacks as a dividing line. She did say, however, that terrorism has intensified and become more international since September 11, and that nations need to work together to combat international terrorism, rather than acting alone.
TOKAI Kisaburo (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> The lack of a way for the Diet to bring initiatives on constitutional issues robs the people of the opportunity to express their views on the Constitution. From the same perspective, I find it strange that there is resistance to enacting a National Referendum Law for constitutional amendments. It is only proper that the Diet, as the legislative branch, should establish a permanent Committee on the Constitution.