Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
1. A free discussion was held on the topic "The Emperor."
2. A free discussion was held on the topic "Security, international cooperation, and emergency situations."
The Emperor
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In practice, the Emperor is recognized internationally as head of state, but we should be cautious about making explicit provision to that effect because Article 4, Paragraph 1 states that he shall not have powers related to government.
>> The Constitution deals rather too briefly with the Emperor-as-symbol system. There should be a more specific statement of the Emperor's symbolic role; examples of possible phrases are "the figure that symbolizes the national character of Japan" or "the symbol of aspirations for the happiness of the people."
>> The question of female succession to the throne is a matter for the Imperial Household Law, but we should also pursue the constitutional debate with a view to recognizing female succession for reasons that include the stability of the Imperial line.
>> Some people argue that the throne should essentially be inherited by male descendants in the male line, with female succession limited to a single generation, but this will not ensure the stability of the Imperial line. We should adopt a broad interpretation of the term "dynastic" in the present Constitution and recognize the female line of descent.
>> In deciding the status of the consort of a female Emperor, we should follow the model of European royal families. The status of the Duke of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom is one example.
>> The line of succession should be according to birth order regardless of sex, as this will enable the heir to be determined sooner. When there are female members of the Imperial family in the line of succession, the need will arise for them to create miyake, "princely houses" or collateral branches of the Imperial family, as is presently done by sons other than the Crown Prince. We should establish fixed criteria for the creation of new miyake to avoid straining the Imperial Household finances.
>> To consolidate the Emperor's symbolic status, in addition to "acts in matters of state," the Constitution should recognize "public acts" for which the Cabinet is responsible. These would fall into two categories: (a) acts of the Emperor as symbol, and (b) acts of the Imperial Household.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Chapter I of the present Constitution is entitled "The Emperor," and Article 1 contains only an indirect reference to "the people with whom resides sovereign power." The first chapter should be entitled "The People" and Article 1 should begin with the words "The Japanese people," thus making it clear that they are the protagonists of the Constitution.
>> In regard to the relationship between the Meiji Constitution and the present one, some people emphasize the continuity with the past that they see in Article 2's reference to a "dynastic" Imperial throne. I cannot agree, however, because the present Constitution ended the Imperial sovereignty that existed under the Meiji Constitution and created a nation based on the sovereignty of the people.
>> We need to be aware that the dynastic Emperor-as-symbol system (a) weakens public consciousness of the sovereignty of the people, and (b) presents a problem of fundamental human rights when seen in relation to Article 14's prohibition of discrimination on grounds of birth.
>> The head of state is, domestically, the head of the executive branch, and, externally, the representative of the nation. Thus, Japan's head of state is not the Emperor but the Prime Minister.
>> The Imperial Household Law needs revision in light of the fact that (a) according to opinion polls, 86 percent of the public accept female succession to the throne; and (b) the term "dynastic" simply refers to successive generations in the same line of descent, and there is thus no logical reason for making a distinction between males and females.
>> The requirement that a female member of the Imperial Family lose the status of Imperial Family member when she marries a nonmember should be deleted. This change needs to be discussed in depth, however, as it would allow an unlimited increase in the number of miyake, collateral branches of the Imperial family, raising concerns about increased expenses for the Imperial Household.
>> We should recognize the right of succession of female descendants in the female line. There are two possible orders of succession, one giving precedence to males and the other corresponding to the order of birth, regardless of sex; in accordance with the principle of equality of the sexes, we should consider the latter model.
>> With regard to the status of a female Emperor's consort, we should follow the British example.
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
>> It is New Komeito's view that nothing in particular needs to be added to the existing provisions concerning the Emperor system.
>> The Emperor as the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people is a figure of authority without power. The system is widely accepted by the public, it is appropriate, and it should be maintained.
>> With regard to whether the Emperor is head of state, while some members are willing to accept the use of that term as long as the symbolic nature of the Emperor remains absolutely clear, there is strong feeling within the party that the position should not carry increased powers; for example, powers related to government. Also, there is very little objection to the present "acts in matters of state," which are passive and ceremonial in nature.
>> Some members would like to see the relationship between the Emperor-as-symbol system and popular sovereignty clarified; this topic should be studied further.
>> While leaving the question of female succession to the debate on revision of the Imperial Household Law, New Komeito intends to give it favorable consideration. The matter calls for both respect for tradition and flexibility.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Article 1 of this Commission's Regulations states that "The Research Commission on the Constitution shall conduct broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan"; thus, it is not a forum for organizing the points at issue with the objective of revising the Constitution. Further, regarding the Commission's report, Article 2 speaks only of "a written report on the process and the result of the research"; the Commission is not empowered to map out a course of action in regard to constitutional revision.
>> Great importance should be attached to the historical context, that is, the fact that under the Meiji Constitution, the Emperor "combin[ed] in himself the rights of sovereignty" and had "the supreme command of the Army and Navy," but under the present Constitution the Emperor is an organ with a symbolic function that derives from the principle of popular sovereignty. In light of the historical background to their enactment, the provisions on "acts in matters of state," which are ceremonial acts performed with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, should be strictly applied.
>> The Prime Minister fits the definition of a head of state, that is, the head of the executive branch and representative of the nation. In view of the historical background, I am opposed to designating the Emperor "head of state."
>> In my belief, it is contrary to the principle that all people are equal to make one man, the Emperor, a symbol of the unity of the people. However, the question of whether to retain or abolish the Emperor system should, I think, be settled in the course of history based on a future consensus of the people.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> A number of recent events suggest that the Constitution faces a crisis, and I find these developments very alarming. They include speculation in the press that this Commission's final report will map out a course of action for constitutional revision; moves to revise the Diet Law to empower this Commission to submit legislative proposals; and statements by the Prime Minister, in reply to questions in the Diet, which could be taken as expressing his intent to revise the Constitution.
>> The Emperor's symbolic role stipulated in the main clause of Article 1 was newly established in keeping with the principle of popular sovereignty stated in the dependent phrase. It was not a continuation of the symbolic role inherent in the monarchy under the Meiji Constitution.
>> Viewed in that light, Japan's form of government can be seen as a type of republicanism, and the Emperor cannot be called head of state, as if he were the sovereign.
>> The Constitution, according to Article 2, makes no distinction between the sexes in the succession to the throne, nor between male and female lines of descent.
>> The Emperor system set forth in the present Constitution is significant in that it rejected absolute monarchy and achieved harmony with the principle of popular sovereignty, which is the culmination of modern constitutionalism.
Comments after the first round
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> Judging by the Empress's comments on the tenth anniversary of the Emperor's enthronement, it seems to me that the present Emperor-as-symbol system has to fulfill its symbolic role, that is, its role as a source of spiritual support, within the confines of many restrictions. In my personal opinion, it would be better to clarify that symbolic role in detail.
>> Female succession can be accepted as a matter of common sense. However, we should also heed the suggestion that, before going into the question of female succession, there are other options for handling the succession issue, such as reviewing the ban on adoption in Article 9 of the Imperial Household Law.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Constitutional debate, which was once taboo, was made possible by the creation of the Research Commission on the Constitution within the Diet, and I would like to acknowledge this as a positive achievement.
>> There are two ways to go about discussing the Constitution: from the viewpoint of reading and interpreting the existing Constitution, and from the viewpoint of creating a new one. I myself have taken the latter approach. But since it is difficult to start from scratch, it is important to think about the process which led to the existing Constitution, taking history and tradition into account.
>> Looking back at the process that led to the present Constitution, as a comparison with Iraq or Afghanistan makes clear, one can see the great importance of the role that the Emperor played in events such as Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. The symbolic Emperor system is an element of great constitutional importance and should definitely be maintained.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In light of the process by which the Constitution was enacted and the way its articles are organized, it is clear that the Emperor has the status of (a) the figure that represents Japan, and (b) the center of authority.
>> If we rearrange the Constitution so that it declares the sovereignty of the people in Article 1 and then refers to the Emperor in Article 2 or later in the text, it will be necessary to make express provision for the Emperor's status as head of state.
>> Some of the religious rites performed by the Imperial Household should be recognized as quasi "acts in matters of state." This is basically a question of Article 20, not Article 7. The interpretation of the term "ceremonial functions" under "acts in matters of state" will, I predict, be expanded as the natural result of a proper debate on Article 20.
>> We should also clearly stipulate that "diplomacy by the Imperial family" comes under "acts in matters of state."
>> Even in ordinary households, it is generally the norm that the male line is responsible for the family's religious rites, and they become the responsibility of the female line only in case of necessity. Thus, even if we recognize female succession to the throne, would it not be appropriate to adopt the same approach?
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should be very careful in considering the proposal to designate the Emperor head of state, since it could create the false impression that the Emperor is involved in politics.
>> Because the Emperor system embodies Japanese traditions and culture, we should be cautious about making any drastic changes in the succession to the throne. Accordingly, while I am in favor of female succession, I am dubious about recognizing succession according to birth order regardless of sex.
>> The debate over whether the order of succession should place precedence on male heirs or on the order of birth regardless of sex involves many potential problems, such as an increase in the number of collateral branches, the status of a female Emperor's consort, and the form that a regency should take. We should therefore discuss the issue while monitoring trends in public opinion.
>> We should recognize "public acts" by the Emperor on the precondition that the Cabinet's advice and approval are obtained, as is done for "acts in matters of state." However, further study is needed before making explicit provision to that effect in the Constitution.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Historically, the presence of an Emperor, as a figure of authority created in the long history of the Japanese people as a whole, has contributed to the peace and happiness of the nation. Considering this historical fact, at the beginning of the Constitution we should stipulate, as the ideal form of the nation, that the Emperor is the head of state of Japan and that he embodies aspirations for the peace, prosperity, and happiness of the nation as a symbol of its history, its traditions, its culture, and the unity of the people.
IKENOBO Yasuko (New Komeito)
>> It seems to me that the question of whether to designate the Emperor head of state was debated exhaustively when the Constitution was enacted. At that time, the point was made that if the term "head of state" were used, because of its associations the public might regard the Emperor's status as more powerful than the Constitution itself requires, but that the word "symbol" does not carry such associations.
>> Occasions like the Imperial New Year's Poetry Reading and the Harvest Festival, which are defined as "private acts," have great meaning and value, and they deserve to be handed down through history. Accordingly, we should make express provision in the Imperial Household Law for "public acts" and private "acts of the Imperial Household."
>> We should recognize female succession, and the eldest child should inherit the throne. If precedence is given to males, females would continue to have a secondary role.
>> Since the number of miyake, collateral branches of the Imperial family, was reduced after the war in the interest of abolishing the class system and reducing the burden on public finances, we should take a cautious approach to the question of allowing the number of miyake to increase when female succession is recognized.
FURUYA Keiji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should recognize female succession because (a) public opinion is in favor, and (b) the Imperial family should be freed from the heavy pressure of the succession question.
>> Because of the financial burden, it is necessary to set some limit to the creation of new miyake after the recognition of female succession. From that point of view, I think that an idea of limiting the succession of miyake to the first child is worth considering.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The reason that Japan's Emperor system has endured for so long while the royal houses of other countries have changed is that the Japanese system takes a different form. If we designate the Emperor "head of state," the system could become just another typical monarchy, to the detriment of the stability and the special nature of the Emperor's position.
>> Items 3, 9, and 10 of the "acts in matters of state" laid down by Article 7 are different in nature from the others. The conditions for item 3, "dissolution of the House of Representatives," should be stipulated in the Diet Law or related legislation. Also, as items 9 and 10 do not have a specific legal effect, it would be clearer if they were reorganized in some other form, not as "acts in matters of state."
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is an ancient Japanese tradition that male descendants in the male line succeed to the throne, but to ensure the stability of the Imperial line we should revise the Imperial Household Law to stipulate succession by the first child of either sex, whether in the male or female line.
>> The Diet, which has the power to revise the Imperial Household Law, has an obligation to ensure the stability of the Emperor system. To persist in limiting succession to male descendants in the male line on the grounds of tradition would not only make the throne unstable but would also be against the will of the people, as nearly 80 percent of the public today favors female succession.
>> Revision of the Imperial Household Law could entail various problems, such as the question of a consort's status or the creation of new miyake, collateral branches by female members of the Imperial family, but we should resolve these by pursuing a forward-looking debate while learning from the examples of other countries.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The idea that recognizing female succession would require a constitutional amendment seems to be a minority view. But we could consider putting the question to a national referendum following the procedure for constitutional amendments, because the Imperial Household Law, which governs succession to the throne, is a legal norm with quasi-constitutional status.
TAKAGI Yosuke (New Komeito)
>> The public accepts the Emperor-as-symbol system by common consent, and there is nothing to be added to Chapter I.
>> The lawmakers who enacted the provisions of the Emperor-as-symbol system took into account the need for harmony with the principles of popular sovereignty and the guarantee of fundamental human rights, and the Emperor's present status as a spiritual support and symbol is appropriate. To make him head of state would actually risk weakening the established public awareness of him as a symbol.
>> In light of the situation in other countries and the trend of public opinion, we should recognize female succession.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Under the legal criteria, it is incorrect to characterize the Emperor as a historical entity or a political authority. His status is strictly that of an organ under the sovereignty of the people, and the provisions of the present Constitution make him a different entity from the Emperor under the Meiji Constitution.
>> Some people argue that the Emperor should have the status of head of state because of his role of representing the nation externally, but the Emperor's constitutional role in Japan's relations with other countries is merely formal and ceremonial and is based on the advice and approval of the Cabinet. If he is in fact representing the nation externally, then the system is being applied in a way that violates the Constitution, and we should correct this.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Emperor should have the status of a figure who embodies Japan's culture and history and whose authority validates political power.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> There are no problems in Articles 1 and 2. The Emperor and the Imperial family fulfill a symbolic role and they should be valued.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With regard to the Emperor's status, as I see it, the present Emperor-as-symbol system has taken root among the public, and it is stable. I think that designating the Emperor "head of state" would cause misunderstandings.
>> We should reach a conclusion on the succession issue by basing our discussion on the actual situation of the Imperial family. Also, we need to discuss the question of collateral branches not only in terms of the finances of the Imperial Household, but also in terms of the role actually played by each of the collateral branches.
SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It seems to me that the term "head of state" has a negative image because it brings to mind the Meiji Constitution. We should create a new definition of a "symbolic head of state," as distinct from the traditional type.
>> Article 4's provision that "he shall not have powers related to government" should be strictly applied, but perhaps we could create a new category of "symbolic acts," separate from "acts in matters of state."
>> We should think about combining the existing Imperial Household Law with the Imperial Household Finance Law in a single "Imperial Household Law."
KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The provisions on the Emperor-as-symbol system are acceptable as they stand. As Professor ASHIBE Nobuyoshi once noted, the word "symbol" has a literary and psychological meaning, it is used in the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution of Spain, and it is linked with Article 4's provision that "he shall not have powers related to government."
>> There is no need to stipulate the status "head of state" explicitly—indeed, it is more meaningful to let it remain implicit—because (a) a head of state is empowered to represent the nation externally, but what the Emperor does in this respect consists simply of "attestation" of diplomatic documents and "receiving" foreign ambassadors and ministers; (b) in many countries today, the position of head of state has become titular; (c) the Emperor is regarded as de facto head of state.
>> We should discuss the Imperial Household Law with a view to recognizing female succession in keeping with the trend of the times, among other considerations.
MATSUNO Hirokazu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Emperor is assigned a special status under the Constitution. Also, since we cannot deny that his authority includes a religious element, I think we should give broad recognition to the rites performed by the Imperial Household, without being bound too rigidly by the principle of separation of religion and the state.
>> There are various matters to be considered in relation to succession in the female line, but I think we should recognize it. However, the equality of the sexes is not the right basis for discussing this question.
MATSUMIYA Isao (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I think the Emperor's status is acceptable as it stands, since the provisions of the present Constitution are unified and coherent. They give the Emperor-as-symbol the formal functions of head of state—neither more nor less.
>> We should recognize succession in the female line and give precedence to the first-born child, regardless of sex.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The need to explicitly designate the Emperor "head of state" arises for external reasons. Hence, we should look at whether the Emperor is treated as head of state when he visits other nations.
>> I think we should give a clear constitutional status to official acts of the Emperor that are not classified as "acts in matters of state."
MIHARA Asahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Emperor continues to this day to have the respect and trust of the people, and I think it is desirable to maintain the existing Emperor-as-symbol system.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The present form of the text can be seen as well-balanced, as it refers to popular sovereignty in the Preamble and to both the Emperor system and popular sovereignty in Article 1.
>> There is a need to improve the Imperial Household Law in relation to such issues as female succession in order to guarantee the continuation of the Emperor system. But since opinion polls show that the public has a favorable view of the current Emperor-as-symbol system, shouldn't the question of whether to designate him head of state be entrusted to a national debate?
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> I think the Emperor is already treated by the international community as a kind of head of state. If that is not the case, it is the responsibility of the government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
>> Sixty years ago, the Emperor system faced a crisis because the Meiji Constitution, modeled as it was on the Prussian Constitution, defined the Emperor's status in terms similar to those used for presidents and monarchs who were heads of state in other countries, despite the fact that the Emperor was an entity of a different kind. It seems to me that the present Emperor-as-symbol system is actually closer to the essence of the Japanese institution.
NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman
(In connection with the comment by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> I served as head of the Emperor's entourage during one of his overseas tours, and I would like to note that he was received with great courtesy that was fully in accord with our expectations.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The Emperor has no powers related to government and should not be designated head of state. Also, some people claim to see continuity with the Meiji Constitution in the symbolic nature of the Emperor as set forth in Article 1, but the Emperor-as-symbol system was created anew based on the principle of popular sovereignty, and questions of power or authority are simply irrelevant.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> When the Meiji Constitution designated the Emperor head of state the intention was to place constitutional restraints on his powers, but such designation under the Emperor-as-symbol system could have the opposite effect. Also, it is sometimes suggested that the term "authority" should be used to characterize the Emperor's status, but we should remember the words in the Preamble, "the authority for which [government] is derived from the people."
Security, International Cooperation, and Emergency Situations
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is necessary to provide a system to protect the nation and the people by armed force against aggression by another nation. Further, we should declare the principle of our international contributions to be "human security on a humanitarian basis," to consist of assistance including military force where it is justified.
>> In Article 9, we should firmly maintain Paragraph 1 and delete or amend Paragraph 2 to make it clear that it is permissible to exercise the right of self-defense, including the right of collective self-defense. However, the right of self-defense should be exercised with restraint; in particular, the exercise of the right of collective self-defense should be limited, for example, to cases with a grave impact on the vital interests of Japan, and the Constitution should set out the procedure, including the involvement of the Diet.
>> We should make provision in the Constitution for Japan to participate actively in joint international operations that are based on an international consensus, such as multinational coalition forces. In making this provision, we should anticipate that the use of force may be necessary, and we should stipulate a "human security" approach.
>> We should give the Self-Defense Forces a constitutional status as the entity responsible for national defense and international contributions; at the same time, we should set forth the principle of civilian control.
>> To deal with emergency situations, we should make explicit provision in the Constitution for temporary centralization of powers, restriction of human rights, and related matters, because the present lack of explicit provisions could lead to implementation that goes beyond the law.
>> In order to answer to the people's mandate, I would like to see this Commission draw up its final report in a clear form. Also, after the report is submitted, a body empowered to present legislative proposals should work toward initiating constitutional amendments and putting in place a National Referendum Law.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Until now, we have dealt with international contributions by means of constitutional interpretation, but this approach has reached its limit. Japan should take part flexibly in peacekeeping operations and in the sanctions for which the UN Charter provides, including the use of force. However, it should be made clear that force is to be used with restraint and that we will participate with the minimum of equipment necessary to maintain order and keep the peace.
>> We should firmly maintain an exclusively defensive posture. The right of individual self-defense will naturally be recognized under this policy, but in considering the right of collective self-defense, we need to reexamine the Japan-U.S. alliance at the same time. Japan should indicate that it will not arm itself with nuclear weapons and will therefore not become an "equal partner."
>> The dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq is a question that should be judged on the basis of what form our international contributions should take, and not on the basis of the Japan-U.S. alliance.
>> In building a regional security framework, it is important to think about the handling of the Korean Peninsula in the context of a "Northeast Asian security organization" concept that includes the United States. Since military participation will be a precondition for a role in regional security and in collective security under the United Nations, we should develop an internal structure that will enable Japan to play a role in that framework.
OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)
>> The existing Constitution is excellent, and it has played a role of great importance. New Komeito takes the position that the three constitutional principles and Article 9 should be firmly maintained, and that, on that basis, new provisions should be added to cover environmental rights and the right to privacy, among other areas.
>> Article 9 forbids wars of aggression and the use of force overseas. It has sent to the other Asian nations the message that Japan embraces the ideals of peace, and it has been at the source of our economic development. We should steadfastly uphold both Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 9.
>> The Self-Defense Forces are constitutional, and Article 9 does not deny us the minimum necessary exercise of the right of self-defense. Under an exclusively defensive posture, the possession of weapons of aggression is not permitted. Some members of New Komeito favor adding provisions on the Self-Defense Forces to Article 9 as a third paragraph, while others see no need for this as they are already constitutional. We will continue to address this question in our debate about additions to the Constitution.
>> As international contributions, Japan should take measures against terrorism and natural disasters in partnership with the United Nations. There is a divergence of opinion within the party as to whether a basis for these measures should be provided in the Constitution, and we will continue to address this question in our debate.
>> The government's interpretation regarding the exercise of the right of collective self-defense shows good political judgment and deserves support, but the debate should take into account the risks that its exercise would pose.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Article 9 is an international pledge that Japan renounces war, and it expresses the resolve to lead the way to a society without war.
>> Article 9 carries the ideals of the UN Charter a step further by rejecting the maintenance of war potential and the right of belligerency. It is an asset that is shared by all of Asia, rather than belonging to Japan alone.
>> Article 9 has put a definite brake on the use of force overseas, but Japan is now engaged in an internal struggle over whether to uphold Article 9 or make the military alliance with the United States central to our policies.
>> As a global reality, it is now clear that the war in Iraq is an illegal war that violates the UN Charter and was not authorized by Security Council resolutions. The international community is focusing anew on Article 9, and it has been taken up by the United Nations' NGO Conference.
>> The move to revise Article 9 and permit the use of force overseas based on the right of collective self-defense goes against the current of international politics. It is significant in realizing the international peace based on the Constitution that the American doctrines of preemptive attack and unilateralism should not be allowed.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> There is no need to change Article 9; instead, we should put it into practice, and politicians are responsible for the failure to do so. In adopting the renunciation of war and the peaceful settlement of disputes as its principles, the Constitution is completely congruent with the UN Charter. The criticism that Article 9 represents "one-nation pacifism" is unjustified.
>> The key to the international agenda for peaceful resolution of conflicts is to prevent war from taking place. Creating a framework to that end, not on our own but together with all the nations of Asia, would be a practical realization of Article 9.
>> One cannot support revising Article 9 to recognize the Self-Defense Forces and the right of collective self-defense amid an atmosphere of debate that ignores other forms of international cooperation and thinks only in terms of sending the Self-Defense Forces overseas and falling into step with the United States' unilateral actions.
>> Imposing on the people a duty to defend the nation would give rise to problems of restricting human rights, and as a result the Constitution's basic principles and its raison d'être would be lost.
>> To put the principles of Article 9 into practice and to make peace and coexistence a reality in Asia and the world: that is our challenge in the 21st century.
Comments after the first round
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Since some people hold the Self-Defense Forces to be unconstitutional, we should clarify their constitutional status.
>> The right of self-defense is an integral right, regardless of its individual or collective nature. We should discuss setting limits for its exercise in the Constitution.
>> Japan should not be too dependent on the United Nations, considering that it was created by the victorious Allied nations, its Charter still contains an "enemy nation clause," and it has never adequately fulfilled its peacekeeping function.
>> We should make constitutional provision for emergency situations in which the Diet is unable to carry on legislative activity.
>> We should establish a constitutional basis for international peace cooperation in order to deal with new conditions such as international terrorism, and we should further develop the international peace cooperation activities of the Self-Defense Forces.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should stipulate in the Constitution that Japan will actively carry out international contribution activities, since post-Cold War changes in the international situation have led to an increasing demand for such contributions in the form of sending personnel.
>> Since the majority of the public recognizes the existence of the Self-Defense Forces and regards them highly, we should state in the Constitution that they are responsible for national defense and international peace cooperation. This would also help gain the trust of neighboring countries.
>> States possess an inherent right of self-defense, and the UN Charter is also clear on this point. Hence, it would be possible to establish that Japan possesses the right of self-defense by enacting a Basic Law on Security.
TAKAGI Yosuke (New Komeito)
>> I appreciate Article 9's contribution to the nation's peace and prosperity, the fact that it has served as a brake restraining Japan from becoming a military power, and the fact that it has given the other Asian nations a sense of security. At the same time, Japan has undeniably been protected by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the Self-Defense Forces.
>> The Self-Defense Forces are constitutional, as a majority of the public recognizes, but we should make explicit constitutional provision for them because some people reject their existence on the grounds that there is no explicit provision in the Constitution.
>> The right of collective self-defense is a natural right of every state; whether or not to exercise it is a question for governments to decide. In view of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the situation in areas surrounding Japan, and other factors, we should make clear provision for the exercise of that right and set clear limits by, for example, enacting a Basic Law on Security.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Paragraph 1 of Article 9 should be maintained as the national policy and symbol of Japan. The existing Paragraph 2 should be deleted and a new Paragraph 2 should explicitly provide for the possession of a self-defense army. In Paragraph 3, we should make provision for international cooperation including the use of force, thereby authorizing participation by Japan in collective security.
>> The exercise of the right of collective self-defense can be provided for adequately in a Basic Law on Security, without making explicit provision in the Constitution. Concerns about unrestricted exercise of the right can be resolved by imposing limits and other requirements in the Law.
>> The Constitution should provide clearly for emergency situations. We should establish explicit provisions to curb improper restriction of the rights of the people and other possible abuses in an emergency, and to ensure a rapid return from a state of emergency to the peacetime status quo.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan's adherence to the ideals of Article 9 has, without doubt, been one element in the nation's success, but I question whether it is appropriate to maintain the status quo on Article 9 in our present circumstances.
>> The lack of established rules for exercising the right of self-defense is problematic. If the ideals of Article 9 are to be upheld, it is important to set these rules down explicitly. The risks involved in leaving them to be decided by constitutional interpretation are too great.
>> The Constitution should set forth the basic principles, such as the existence of the right of self-defense (whether individual or collective) and the requirements for its exercise, the existence of the Self-Defense Forces, civilian control, and so on. The details should be stipulated in a Basic Law on Security.
>> It is important to lay down rules for emergency situations, including a simplified procedure for enacting legislation during a state of emergency, and the retroactive role of the Diet.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> There is a risk that future governments will interpret Article 9 in any way they wish, because the legislators' intent is unclear and both the background to its enactment and the text itself are obscure. We should state clearly that military potential for self-defense will be limited to the minimum level necessary.
>> I believe that, even in the absence of an explicit provision in the Constitution, the right of collective self-defense can be exercised if the Prime Minister so decides, but in order to ensure that this does not lead to unlimited joint action with the United States, we should impose the restriction "where the vital interests of the nation are at stake."
>> There is a risk that international contributions involving military participation might be recognized by construing them as not constituting "[war] as a sovereign right of the nation." We should stipulate in the Constitution that international contributions involving military participation will be undertaken solely as a last resort.
FURUYA Keiji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In Article 9, while firmly maintaining Paragraph 1, we should delete Paragraph 2 in order to protect the lives and property of the people. We should then state explicitly that we possess and can exercise the right of self-defense, treating it as a single right with no distinction between individual and collective self-defense.
>> We should make express provision in the Constitution for the status of the Self-Defense Forces as the entity that carries out international contributions, and for the general rules governing their operations.
>> The Constitution should specify measures to be taken in emergency situations, such as centralization of power in the hands of the Prime Minister, the power to take extraordinary measures, including measures to protect or restrict human rights, and the Diet's function of control over these actions.
>> For consistency with the revised Article 9, in the Preamble we should declare a positive commitment to making international contributions.
FUKUSHIMA Yutaka (New Komeito)
>> The ideal is to uphold Article 9, but if we are to pursue that ideal in the international community, we need to bring it into harmony with reality by stipulating the right of self-defense, among other changes.
>> In Article 9, Paragraph 2 is not a logical consequence of Paragraph 1; moreover, the Self-Defense Forces do in fact exist. It is only proper that Japan should possess the right of self-defense and an organization to defend itself. We should think about provisions to reconcile the reality and the ideals of Article 9.
>> The exercise of the right of collective self-defense should be viewed in terms of an extension of the right of individual self-defense; it should not be seen as an unlimited right, in light of Paragraph 1 of Article 9.
>> We should establish new provisions for international contributions, taking into account both the realities and the ideals contained in Article 9 and the Preamble.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. HANASHI)
>> If the Constitution is unclear, that is the fault of successive governments; it is not inherently ambiguous. We should strive to bring the realities closer to Article 9.
>> Referring to the process by which the Constitution was enacted, Mr. HANASHI commented that the legislators' intent is unclear. But it is quite clear, as can be seen, for example, in the replies of the government of the day to questions in the Diet. Furthermore, the government has since stated clearly in a written reply that the enactment process did not contravene the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
(Comments)
>> The status of the Self-Defense Forces is unconstitutional and they should be phased out. The use of force overseas by the Self-Defense Forces is a violation of Article 9.
>> The Research Commission on the Constitution is not a forum for condensing the arguments and reaching a conclusion. It is strictly a forum for free discussion.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. YAMAGUCHI)
>> I am not suggesting that we abandon our ideals, but it seems to me that Article 9 can no longer meet the demands of reality because its interpretation is unclear.
(Comments)
>> We should establish a clear constitutional status for armed forces for self-defense.
>> If the traditional concept of the right of self-defense is to be expanded by recognizing the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, we should make explicit provision to that effect, because it has a bearing on the question of the extent to which Japan is prepared to act jointly with the United States.
>> With regard to the scope of international cooperation, from the viewpoint of obtaining a national consensus, it is realistic to limit it to nonmilitary activities.
>> Sending NGO personnel to carry out international cooperation work presents security problems, and it would not make sense economically to set up an organization separate from the Self-Defense Forces to carry out international cooperation programs.
>> It has been argued that we should stipulate national emergency powers in the Constitution, but the need for emergency powers can be dealt with under subordinate laws such as the Law on the Protection of the People.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The contents of Article 9 are clear. The problem is that its provisions have not been applied as they stand.
>> We should retain both paragraphs of Article 9. If it is reduced to Paragraph 1, it will be open to the interpretation that Japan renounces only wars of aggression, not wars of self-defense. Wars of self-defense pose a problem because the necessary conditions are less strict than the three criteria which presently govern the exercise of the right of individual self-defense.
>> A basis for international contributions can be found in Paragraph 1 of Article 9; accordingly, Japan should cooperate in nonmilitary sectors.
>> We should not exercise the right of collective self-defense. If we make provision for its exercise in the Constitution, I fear that Article 9 will no longer serve as a brake.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is necessary to give the Self-Defense Forces the status of a national army and to state this explicitly in the Constitution, so that we do not keep repeating the fruitless debate over their constitutional status.
>> When one examines the process by which Article 9 was enacted, together with the UN Charter, it follows as a matter of course that the possession and exercise of the right of self-defense are recognized constitutionally as a national right of self-preservation.
>> The Constitution should stipulate that Japan possesses the right of collective self-defense, but its exercise should be restricted within the framework of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
>> The Constitution should include provisions on international contributions so that the Self-Defense Forces can play a more active role in operations within a framework of international cooperation.
>> The Constitution should stipulate the power to take extraordinary measures to deal with emergency situations such as military emergencies and major disasters in the capital.
SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I interpret the existing Constitution to mean that we possess the rights of individual and collective self-defense, but instead of dwelling on interpretations, we should move on to the question of what to do about the Constitution in the future. That discussion should encompass Japan's role in the international community and in Asia.
>> Recognizing an unlimited right of self-defense would have a grave impact on Japan's security.
>> I am not convinced that civilian control is working at present. We should implement "civil control" on the American model. I suggest that raising the Defense Agency to ministry level would enable the Diet to exert direct control.
TANIGAWA Yaichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In Article 9, I propose that we maintain Paragraph 1, stipulate the possession of defense forces in Paragraph 2, and provide for their participation in international peacekeeping operations in Paragraph 3.
>> The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty has complemented the Constitution and existed and functioned to protect the lives and property of the Japanese people. However, conditions have changed since the immediate postwar years, leading to an increased role for Japan under the Security Treaty today.
>> We need to work out principles to live by as human beings if we are to deal with the problems that current irresponsible attitudes have caused—problems such as the collapse of public finances, the declining birthrate and aging population, and degradation of the environment.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> In thinking about Article 9, I always keep in mind the question of what status the Self-Defense Forces should have under the Constitution.
>> Despite the growing role of the Self-Defense Forces, the Defense Agency is still part of the Cabinet Office. This is an unworkable arrangement.
>> A majority of New Komeito members believes that both paragraphs of Article 9 should remain as they stand; revision is not a high priority because the necessary popular consensus is lacking. However, we do need to straighten out the contradictions in the interpretation of Article 9 and to work toward a national consensus on its revision.
KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We should make explicit constitutional provision for the right of individual and collective self-defense in order to curb ever-broader constitutional interpretations. The provision should state three conditions: (a) the right of self-defense applies only in cases of urgent and unavoidable necessity; (b) it applies until the United Nations has taken necessary measures; (c) measures taken in the exercise of the right of self-defense shall be reported to the United Nations.
>> We should stipulate in the Constitution that Japan will participate in collective security under the United Nations. In participating, force should be used with restraint.
>> Since we have been facing a succession of unforeseeable events, we should make provision in the Constitution for dealing with emergencies.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With regard to the gap between the Constitution and reality, the Constitution should of course be upheld, but since the Constitution itself contains an amendment provision, it should also be revised in keeping with changing conditions.
>> We should clearly stipulate the right of self-defense, whether individual or collective, in the Constitution. At the same time, we should set limits on its exercise, specifying that it shall be exercised to the minimum extent necessary. The details should be set out in a Basic Law on Security.
>> The Constitution should provide for powers to deal with emergency situations, and it should establish a framework for the exercise of those powers.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I do not deny the Constitution's value because of how it was enacted, but the idea of ensuring security through "the justice and faith of the ... peoples of the world" lacks the perspective of self-defense, that is, protecting the nation by means of armed force.
>> We should discuss what form joint action with other nations should take in cases where the security and peace of Japan are seriously affected. The discussion should include the viewpoint of the right of collective self-defense.
>> Having adopted an exclusively defensive security posture, we should have the strongest possible defense system with no vulnerable points. In terms of risk management, the capacity to use force is necessary as a guarantee against actions that harm our peace and security. To stipulate a risk management approach to both defense and international contributions in the Constitution, as a realistic process for achieving peace, would also be consistent with the spirit of democracy.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Every nation possesses the right of self-defense, but each makes provision in its constitution for how it will exercise that right, and under Article 9 Japan cannot resort to military means.
>> In enacting a set of laws for military emergencies at a time when military invasion of Japan is less likely than in the past, clearly the government's aim was not so much to protect the people as to permit joint action with the United States.
>> The proposal to revise the Self-Defense Forces Law to enable Japanese forces to participate in overseas military operations in response to the ongoing transformation of the U.S. military already goes beyond the position stated as the government's unified opinion. The problem is not the Constitution; it is policies and government positions that are contrary to the Constitution.
>> The Self-Defense Forces should be turned into an organization that can make contributions in nonmilitary fields.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Japan owes its success in maintaining peace not to the existence of the Constitution but to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and international cooperation.
>> If we establish that the state has a duty to protect its own independence and the lives and property of the people, this new value system could serve as a basis for the existence of the right of self-defense.
>> It is not desirable to, in effect, leave the interpretation of the Constitution to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. We need a permanent body in the Diet to judge questions of constitutionality.
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should delete Paragraph 2 of Article 9, because the state has a duty to protect the lives and property of the people. However, it is also necessary to prevent conflicts through diplomacy, not just to respond with force, and we could consider making provision to that effect in the Constitution.
>> In the common interest of humankind, we should make active international contributions to help combat terrorism, hunger, and other problems. A statement to that effect is needed in the Constitution, for the sake of future generations as well as our own.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> When we consider Japan's national interests and the scale of its economy, we need a national policy for dealing with risks, instead of leaving the use of force as a means of guaranteeing security to other countries. Also, since Japan will likely be called on to use force once a "Northeast Asian security organization" becomes a reality, we should establish rules in the Constitution for the use of force.