June 1999

INTRODUCTION

The following recommendations comprise the Democratic Party of Japan's basic thinking on Japan's security policy as we stand on the verge of the 21st century. The three premises on which these recommendations are based are as follows.

Firstly, these recommendations focus primarily on security issues in the narrow sense. Obviously, the most important factor in achieving peace is diplomacy, and narrowly defined security becomes an issue only once diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. The DPJ is strongly aware of the need for preventive diplomacy to nip war and conflict in the bud. The ethnic and religious-based conflicts that have become so marked in recent years are frequently rooted in economic difficulties. Japan's diplomatic capacity, which is backed by its economic power, needs to be further enhanced to contribute to the creation of peace. Japan should aim to improve its comprehensive diplomatic and defense capacity, including closer coordination with non-government organizations (NGOs), which have become increasingly important in recent years.

Secondly, these recommendations were formed on the basis of a full recognition of the major changes in the security environment brought about by the end of the cold war. Putting aside security arguments based on old-fashioned ideological confrontation, the DPJ will work toward the establishment of more autonomous security policies for Japan while fully recognizing the importance of Japan-U.S. relations in the area of security.

The third point is the relationship with the Japanese Constitution. The DPJ hopes to see active debate on the Constitution in the years to come. But at the same time, our basic position is that emphasis should continue to be placed on the pacifism that is the basic principle of the Japanese Constitution.

I. SECURITY ENVIRONMENT AND JAPAN'S BASIC RESPONSE

1. THE POST COLD WAR WORLD

(1) Significance of the End of the Cold War

The direct clashes between the U.S. and Soviet superpowers during the East-West cold war posed a constant and direct threat to the survival of the human race in the form of a large-scale nuclear war. Mostly in developing countries, the two superpowers also engaged in numerous regional proxy wars based on the ideological clash between communism and capitalism. These risks have been greatly diminished with the end of the cold war.

(2) New Threats

On the other hand, the end of this era of ideological confrontation has removed the pressing weight of the superpowers, and brought about frequent regional conflicts. They are based on ethnic, religious and resource-related issues and economic difficulties. The nature of conflict has also diversified from clashes between nations to terrorism and guerilla activities in which the main agents are religious and ethnic groups, for example, rather than states. New threats are emerging, such as the improved performance and proliferation of missiles, computer-hacking and attacks on information systems and the localized use of biological and chemical weapons away from the battlefield. The world needs to develop diverse military and non-military responses to these new threats.

(3) Nuclear Weapons

The nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan revealed the fact that the world is facing a nuclear weapon proliferation crisis. To avoid not only the use of nuclear weapons as a tool of war but also the risk of their accidental utilization, we must renew our consciousness of the importance of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In June 1998, the DPJ submitted recommendations on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in response to the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. These recommendations included a proposal to oblige nuclear powers to radically reduce nuclear stockpile in order to promote nuclear disarmament. More specifically, we proposed accelerating nuclear disarmament negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation, as well as the reduction of the total number of ballistic missile to 1,000 or less in the near future. The DPJ believes that Japan has a responsibility to exercise active leadership over nuclear issues as a non-nuclear power and the only country on which an atomic bomb has been dropped.

(4) Means to Settle International Dispute

The end of the cold war has increased the expectations of a greater role for the U.N. in resolving international conflict, and in fact there have been cases where the United Nations has played an active role in this regard. However, given the fact that the United Nations was unable to play an overtly positive role in resolving the Kosovo issue in 1999, and faced with the reality that there exists yet no official U.N. military force, we cannot but conclude that the conflict resolution capability of the United Nations has major limits at this point. Because of this situation, the United States is in fact playing a significant role as the only remaining superpower. The behavior of the United States, however, is naturally a reflection of American national interest. The world has therefore yet to find effective and legitimate means of conflict resolution, and in this sense a new international order has yet to be established.

2. THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

(1) Basic Understanding

The Asia-Pacific region, and particularly the ASEAN countries, are currently struggling with a severe economic situation arising from the recent financial and currency crisis. This has led to the destabilization of domestic politics in a number of countries. For example, the situation in Indonesia over the next few years could have an enormous impact, not least in terms of its repercussions on other countries.

There are also medium- to long-term destabilizing factors on regional security, such as territorial rights issues, nationalism and arms build-ups, and further work is needed for peace and stability. It is true that efforts toward confidence-building in bodies such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) are beginning to bear fruit, and these trends will need to be further accelerated. However, we must be aware that there is no framework for collective security in the region with the military capacity to effectively resolve any conflict which might occur.

(2) The United States

The United States maintains a military presence in the Asia-Pacific for regional peace and stability, and is also displaying a willingness to involve itself actively in the region. This nation is in fact playing a major role as a stabilizer of the region. The DPJ believes that the military presence of the United States is important to regional peace and stability, while also bearing in mind the fact that U.S. activities are directed at securing U.S. national interests.

(3) People's Republic of China

China is a major player in this region on a par with the United States. It is also likely to become an increasingly important player in the international community. It will be extremely significant for the sake of stability in the Asia-Pacific region if China maintains its economic course of reform and opening, while continuing to follow a path of cooperative diplomacy, starting with its active involvement in bodies such as APEC and ARF. Strengthening the U.S.-China and Japan-China partnerships will be an important factor in promoting regional peace. The DPJ will work to further deepen both Japan-U.S. and Japan-China relations.

(4) Russian Federation

Russia, a former superpower, is currently faced with domestic economic difficulties. Russia's involvement in the Asia-Pacific region is therefore likely to remain limited in the meantime. If the Russian domestic situation deteriorates any further, it could even become a cause of instability in the international community. However, Russia is obviously an important actor in regard to the Korean Peninsula issue. Despite the Northern Territories Issue, Japan should contribute to increased Russian stability through further economic and private sector exchange.

(5) Japan's Role

Given the above, the DPJ believes that Japan should play the following interim role in order to secure Asia-Pacific peace and stability. Firstly, Japan should become aware of the magnitude of the role it should play in the region. It is important that Japan should take responsibility as the nation with the largest economy in the region. It should work to open its market and expand imports; use this economic power and its technological capacity to lay the foundations for greater affluence and safety for the people of the region; and provide effective economic aid and capital assistance toward economic reconstruction. Simultaneously, Japan has to work actively to strengthen democracy and human rights in the region. Secondly, Japan will maintain the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, which have an important impact on the peace and stability of the region, while managing these arrangements effectively and in a balanced manner through closer consultation with the United States. To do so, we need to further strengthen the relationship in all areas between the U.S. and Japan, which are both democratic nations with mostly shared values. Thirdly, we should deepen Japan-China exchange in all areas to establish mutual trust. Japan should also make greater diplomatic efforts to encourage China's more active involvement in Asia-Pacific security dialogue, particularly in the ARF and APEC.

3. REGION AROUND JAPAN

(1) Basic Understanding

The end of the East-West cold war has greatly reduced the probability of a large-scale direct invasion of Japan. However, there are a number of serious security issues in Northeast Asia as a legacy of the cold war, such as the tension on the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, the possibility has now arisen of new threats unforeseeable during the cold war, such as internal turmoil caused by guerilla activities.

At this point in time, the possibility of a large-scale direct invasion of Japan is slight. However, the possibility cannot be completely ruled out of military tension rising at some point in the future between Japan and its neighbors due to economic difficulties and political instability in these countries. The DPJ believes that it is important to work consciously to alleviate the distrust of neighboring countries created by Japan's past wars of aggression, encouraging exchange at all levels to promote mutual understanding. While working in this way for the mutual restraint of the arms race through the creation of mutual trust, Japan should work for the regulations of missiles and other arms should work towards, and future disarmament.

(2) Situation on the Korean Peninsula

The situation on the Korean Peninsula is quite fairly serious. In particular, given North Korea's substantial technical capacity in the field of ballistic missiles, it would pose a major threat to Japan if North Korea were to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Recognizing North Korea's suspected nuclear capability and ballistic missile development as potential threats to Japan's own security, Japan needs to work more actively to resolve these problems. In April1999, the DPJ summed up its basic thinking on the handling of the North Korean issue. The report stressed the following five points:(1) strongly promote progress toward peaceful co-existence and North-South dialogue between the Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea; (2) emphasize "the comprehensive and integrated approach" through consultations with the United States, China, the ROK, and Russia; (3) move actively to normalize diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea with close liaison with the countries directly concerned and with Japanese political parties, and build confidence between North Korea and the international community; (4) encourage the early resumption of governmental negotiations between Japan and North Korea; and (5) consider creating a Northeast Asian security framework centered around Japan, the United States, China, the ROK, the DPRK and Russia. The DPJ will deal actively with issues involving the Korean Peninsula based on this approach.

(3) Republic of Korea

Relations with the Republic of Korea are becoming closer, particularly in the economic field. While President Kim Dae Jung's visit to Japan in 1998 saw progress in Japan-ROK relations, sincere efforts need to be made to strengthen these ties further, building deeper relations of trust. Economic interdependence between the two countries should be deepened, while we should also accelerate cultural and regional exchange. It will be also important that both Japan and the ROK promote mutual exchange and dialogue on security issues. Such topics, the shape of security in Northeast Asia once the Korean Peninsula has stabilized should be discussed. In order to resolve the territorial issues between the two countries so that these do not flare up into major problems in the future, consideration should be given to the creation of some kind of consultative framework that includes third-party international institutions.

(4) Taiwan Issue

To avoid a military clash between China and Taiwan over the Taiwan Strait is a vital interest for Japan. Tension between China and the United States over the Taiwan Strait issue would also further destabilize the entire Asian region. The basic position of the DPJ is that we do not support Taiwan's unilateral independence, but at the same time we oppose any use of force by China against Taiwan. The DPJ also stresses the importance of lobbying China and Taiwan to avoid severe tension over the Taiwan Straits. Such preventive diplomacy should be given maximum priority in Japan's foreign policy. Needless to say, we respect the Joint Communiqué of 1972, which states that "the Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China ..."

II. BASIC THINKING ON THE JAPANESE CONSTITUTION

(1) Basic Understanding

The Japanese Constitution has adopted pacifism as its basic principle, entailing a more complete repudiation of war than the renunciation of wars of aggression seen in other countries' Constitutions, with Japan imposing restrictions on itself. This is based on Japan's deep remorse at the war of aggression it launched on the pretext of self-defense, resulting in the tragic experience of World War II. The DPJ takes the position that this basic spirit remains important even today and should be maintained.

The DPJ believes that it is important to discuss Constitution-related issues. Where the original text of the Constitution makes it hard for policy-makers to respond adequately to current realities, a mature democracy should, generally speaking, amend the Constitution as necessary rather than choose the option of facile reinterpretation. The DPJ therefore hopes to see wide-ranging debate, including on security issues, on the Constitution, either in the DPJ's "Research Committee on the Constitution" or the Diet's "Research Commission on the Constitution." The opinions presented below represent the ideas of the DPJ at this point, in advance of thorough going discussion of the Constitution.

(2) Article 9

Since the Constitution was formulated, various ideas as to the interpretation of Article 9 have been put forward in debate in the Diet and in academic circles. At this point in time, however, it is important to note that the majority of Japanese accept, after 50 years of Diet discussion, the following interpretation of the Constitution. That is, firstly, Japan has not renounced the exercise of its right to individual self-defense if Japan is subject to an unlawful attack from abroad, and secondly, the existence of the current Self-Defense Force (SDF) is not unconstitutional.

(3) Formal UN Force and Collective Security

Although an official United Nations military force based on the special agreements foreseen in Articles 42 and 43 of the UN Charter or collective security arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region have not yet materialized, we should consider how Japan should respond to such developments if we actually face them. As noted below, the DPJ welcomes these developments and believes that Japan should participate in them in the future. However, we should wait for a fully detailed discussion within and beyond the DPJ as to whether Japan would be able to participate under the current Constitution.

(4) Allied Force Based on UN Security Council Resolution

Some argue that Japan should participate actively in multinational forces that use armed force, based on a UN Security Council Resolution. They insist that the concept of international cooperation in the preamble to the Constitution demands such Japanese participation, and that it should not be seen as "war as a sovereign right of the nation" as stipulated in Article 9 of the Constitution.

However, each participating country usually retains command aver its troops in such multinational forces. Furthermore, Japan's decision as to whether or not it should participate in such multinational forces could be seen as the exercise of the state's sovereign rights where individual countries were left free to make their own decision on participation. We recognize the role that multinational forces are actually playing on the basis of official Security Council resolutions as explained below. However, the DPJ believes that Article 9 of the Constitution does not allow Japan's participation in multinational forces where this entails the exercise of armed force.

(5) Right to Collective Self-Defense

The government takes the position that the exercise of the right to self-defense articulated in Article 9 extends no further than the minimum essential to defend Japan, and that the right to collective self-defense is forbidden under the Constitution as it goes beyond the limits of Article 9. The exercise of the right to collective self-defense is defined as the exercise of the right to use one's power to prevent an armed attack on a country with a close relationship with Japan, even where Japan itself is not directly attacked. Therefore, accepting an interpretation of Article 9 which states that we can exercise the right of collective self-defense would mean major reinterpretation, and could lead to a false conclusion that Article 9 only bans narrowly defined "wars of aggression." Given the above, the DPJ believes that the pros and cons of exercising the right to collective self-defense should not be determined by reinterpretation of the Constitution.

(6) Defense Policy Principles

Over the last half-century, we have established, through debates in the Diet, the following defense policy principles based on Japan's pacifist Constitution:

1. Japan will not exercise armed force abroad, which goes beyond exercising the right to self-defense.

2. Japan will maintain an exclusively defense-oriented policy.

3. Japan will maintain the minimum essential military strength required for the exercise of the right to self-defense.

4. Japan will not exercise the right to collective self-defense.

5. Japan will not possess nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

6. Japan will only exercise the right to self-defense in situations meeting the three requirements (where a sudden and unlawful attack is launched on Japan; where there are no other appropriate means other than the use of force available; and where the exercise of military force is kept to the minimum necessary).

7. Japan will not adopt a conscription system.

8. Japan will maintain civilian control.

9. Japan will adhere to the three principles of arms exports.

10. Japan will adhere to the three non-nuclear principles.

The DPJ believes that these principles should continue to be respected.

III. SECURITY ARRNGEMENTS

1. JAPAN'S DEFENSE AND FORCE STRUCTURE

(1) Basic Understanding

The end of the cold war has reduced the risk of a direct, large-scale attack on Japan. This is the most important change in recent Japan's security environment. However, there are still situations in Northeast Asia which require caution, including the emergence of potential new threats such as terrorist and guerilla activities, the use of biological and chemical weapons, illegal entry into Japanese territory (land, waters and airspace), and the proliferation of missiles and nuclear weapons. A flexible response to these changes will require a flexible review of the National Defense Program Outline, and given Japan's current severe fiscal condition, considerations should include a review of the traditional allocation of resources and restraint of defense spending.

Furthermore, diversified roles are expected today for the SDF. In addition to the response to the various threats noted above, the SDF are now expected to fulfill important and varied roles such as disaster dispatches, PKO activities and other international cooperation activities, Japan-U.S. defense cooperation in situations in areas surrounding Japan, and the evacuation of Japanese citizens abroad.

(2) Responses to New Threats

Japan needs to ensure an effective and high-quality self-defense capacity adapted to the above-mentioned changes in the SDF environment and in the role the SDF are expected to play. In particular, SDF equipment, deployment and force structure, designed to deal primarily with large-scale, direct attacks on Japan should be subjected to a sweeping review. Japan should also swiftly develop mechanisms that enable Japan to deal in principle by itself with new small-scale contingencies such as terrorism and guerilla activities. While the National Defense Program Outline adopted by the Cabinet in 1995 noted that the end of the East-West cold war had greatly reduced the likelihood of an armed conflict occurring on a world scale, there has been no major shift from the old scenario of the cold war era. Japan needs to move swiftly to develop new force structure suited to a new security environment. The Ground Self Defense Force, for example, should put more emphasis on mobile armaments able to deal with guerilla-style operations rather than focusing on tank brigades.

Japan should also consider the legislation in regard to subversive activities and violations of sovereignty perpetrated through terrorism and guerilla activities. The following points will be important in this regard:

1. Express clear political commitment to taking resolute measures against such violations of sovereignty.

2. Establish an integrated crisis control mechanism to ensure smooth liaison between the Maritime Safety Agency, the police, and SDF.

3. Ensure that the Self Defense Force can respond quickly in situations beyond the capacity of the Maritime Safety Agency and the police.

4. Develop mechanisms to allow a prudent and effective response to emergency situations through prior clarification of standards for the use of arms, including creation of "rules of engagement (ROE)."

5. Ensure civilian control.

Urgent consideration also needs to be given to an effective response to the growing missile threat. Measures would include Japan-U.S. cooperation, while abiding by the principle ofan exclusively defense-oriented policy.

(3) Legislation over a State of Emergency

While the Self Defense Force Law stipulates basic requirements and procedures in regard to SDF mobilization in a state of emergency, legal provisions in terms of post-mobilization rules are far from complete. As matters stand, an emergency such as a direct attack on Japan could result in greater damage to civilian life and property because SDF operations were not conducted smoothly, or the SDF could be forced to take supra legal measures, which may lead to the violation of basic human right. It will therefore be important to fully discuss the legal aspects of emergency situations beforehand, developing the necessary legislation. More specifically, such legislation would entail the following characteristics:

1. Give a legal basis for SDF operations so that they can deal effectively with emergency situations such as armed attacks on Japan.

2. Ensure that operations by bodies such as the SDF would remain under civilian control in such emergency situations, and guarantee civilian rights, and particularly the basic human rights and freedom of expression articulated by the Constitution so that civilian rights are restricted no more than is necessary.

(4) Arms Procurement

To equip the SDF with the necessary armaments on a limited defense budget, Japan needs to break away from the traditional approach whereby equal priority is given to the Ground, Maritime and Air SDF. Instead, it should draw up a budget that takes into account likely threats. In terms of cutting costs, the scope should be widened for on-the-shelf goods, actively introducing open bidding. Armament procurement methods must also be reformed to the greatest extent possible to ensure transparency, objectivity and fairness in regard to those armaments subject to optional contracts and limited tenders. The traditional technology R&D system needs to be reviewed.

Japan has worked to protect domestic production of armaments to maintain its defense production and technological foundations. However, basic discussion is now needed on the scope of domestic procurement, its cost-effectiveness and its supplementation in times of emergency. Where armaments are procured abroad, source diversification should be considered in order to cut costs.

(5) Intelligence

Under an exclusive defense-oriented policy, improvement of Japan's information gathering, analyzing, and utilizing capacity is an urgent task. Japan should place maximum priority on obtaining an indigenous information satellite and enhancing the function of Defense Intelligence Headquarters in Japan Defense Agency. It is also necessary to respond to vulnerability of cyber space expected to emerge in computers and information systems of the JDA and SDF.

2. JAPAN-U.S. SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS

(1) Basic Understanding

In the post-war period, Japan has pursued an effective security policy, opting for an exclusive defense orientation based on Article 9 of the Constitution, and forming an alliance with the United States. The DPJ welcomes the fact that Japan and the United States have broadly shared the values of democracy and market economy and built close relations in both security and the economy. These developments have contributed greatly to the peace and prosperity of the post-war Japan. Needless to say, the most basic obligation of the state is to ensure the safety of Japanese citizens, and Japan's own diplomatic and defensive efforts are obviously the primary methods for that target. Simultaneously, the DPJ recognizes that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is the most important pillar of Japan's security policy.

(2) New Defense Guidelines

The new defense guidelines were agreed between Japan and the United States in 1997. Under normal circumstances, in response to an armed attack against Japan, and in situations in areas surrounding Japan that will have an important influence on Japan's peace and security (situations in areas surrounding Japan),縲?the guidelines stipulate Japan's cooperation with the U.S. army acting in order to secure the peace and safety of Japan in rear-area support, search and rescue operation, and activities for ensuring the effectiveness of economic sanctions for the maintenance of international peace and stability, and etc. The DPJ fully recognizes the need for the new guidelines. At the same time, Japan's autonomy in decision-making needs to be fully secured in regard to the implementation of such legislation, including the designation of "situations in area surrounding Japan." We should pay careful attention both on the impact on Japan's safety and the influence on people's civil life. The DPJ will seek constant revision of the recently passed Guidelines- related law as necessary, including the aspect of Diet involvement.

(3) Japan's More Autonomous Decision-Making

Because the current Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements have left the United States to make the major decisions and Japan has been satisfied with simply being a junior partner, the Japan-U.S. relationship cannot be called an alliance in the true sense of the word. The stance that Japan should take from now on is to engage in close dialogue and consultation with the United States, giving full consideration to Japan's national interests. Obviously, the national interests of Japan and the United States will not always coincide perfectly. Dealing with the situation through frank and high-quality consultations will be the key in such cases. Japan's more autonomous decision-making is critical in this regard.

From this perspective, further clarification is needed of the prior consultation system based on the 1960 Exchange of Notes Concerning Article VI of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. The extremely narrow interpretation adopted by the Japanese government needs to be rethought. For example, the "use of bases for combat operations conducted from Japan" excludes U.S. naval vessels' "dispatch from bases in Japan" according to the government. Domestic laws and ordinances should also be developed to clarify which parties within the Japanese government will participate in prior consultations and the procedures by which the Japanese government will make its decision. Obviously these are issues which need to be worked out through close discussion with the United States.

(4) U.S. Military Bases

The form and scale of U.S. military bases in Japan needs to be constantly reviewed. In particular, U.S. bases are concentrated in Okinawa, imposing heavy cost and burden on Okinawan people even today, fifty years since the end of the World War II. The DPJ will work actively toward the consolidation and scaling-down of U.S. bases in Okinawa, including the transfer of facilities within Japan and abroad. We will also pressure the Japanese and U.S. governments to produce an early conclusion on the transfer of the Futenma Air Station, the centerpiece of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) agreement, giving full consideration to the views of the people of Okinawa. The DPJ believes that it is meaningful to consider SACOII negotiation in order to lend greater momentum to the consolidation and scaling-down of U.S.
bases.

When the situation on the Korean Peninsula stabilizes at some point in the future, a major review is likely to take place over the current role of the U.S. forces in South Korea, including their raison d窶?ecirc;tre. Then, all U.S. forces stationed in East Asia, including Japan, will probably need to be scaled down or re-deployed. Once the Korean Peninsula has stabilized, basic discussion is needed from a medium- to long-term perspective over the presence of U.S. forces in the Far East as well as the roles of U.S. bases in Japan as a base for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

The DPJ regards operational improvement of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement as an important task. Referring back to the status of forces agreements the United States has concluded with various European countries, the DPJ will also negotiate frankly with the United States over review and revision of the above agreement.

3. SECURITY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

(1) Significance of the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements

The Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements have a major role in ensuring the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. Close diplomatic and security tie between the two good economic super powers based on the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements act as a stabilizing factor in the region. In Asia where no collective security framework such as NATO exists, the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region plays an important role for the peace and stability of the region. And the U.S. forces in Japan function as the focus of all U.S. forces in the region. Its objective being stated literally as peace and stability in the Far East, however, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty does not explicitly legitimize the role of U.S. forces stationed in Japan in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. In any case, the DPJ believes that more effective Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements would provide an important foundation for regional peace and stability. What is crucial for Japan is to build a relationship of trust with the alliance partner. Through frank consultations with the United States, Japan should try to make sure that U.S. behavior should be balanced with the benefit of the region as a whole, rather than being solely concentrated too narrowly on national interest.

(2) More Independent and Proactive Role of Japan

Japan has an important role to play in the Asia-Pacific. In other words, Japan needs to make active efforts to improve bilateral relations with neighboring countries and to promote both regional and UN based efforts in order to improve Japan's security in the broad sense. Developing its preventive diplomacy toward nuclear non-proliferation and crisis prevention and reduction is especially important. At the same time, in terms of narrowly defined security, Japan obviously needs to proceed very carefully, ameliorating the distrust of neighboring countries. From this perspective, the DPJ believes that Japan should continue to take a cautious stance over unilateral SDF action in the Asia-Pacific region, with the exception of, for example evacuations of Japanese civilians abroad. Strict implementation of Guidelines-related legislation will be needed to ensure that there is no expansion of the scope of JSDF rear area support activities provided to the U.S. military.

(3) Security Dialogue

APEC and ARF have played an important role in promoting security-related confidence-building in the ASEAN region. In the context of the recent Asian economic crisis, Japan is expected to display leadership in promoting the effective functioning of groups such as the ARF. The DPJ also stresses efforts to create an Asia-Pacific multilateral security dialogue framework, possibly as an extension of the ARF, as well as expansion of the Four-Party Talks on Korean Peninsula issues into Six-Party Talks, building a Northeast Asian Forum that includes Japan and Russia. These multilateral forums should engage actively in confidence-building measures such as exchange of defense personnel, as well as visits to each other's bases and facilities; the release and exchange of prior notification and information on training exercises, etc.; and the establishment of telecommunication networks. Japan should also take active initiatives within the bounds of the Constitution, such as proposing intra-regional joint management of security information, data on piracy included, and joint operation of information satellites.

Creation of such an Asia-Pacific multilateral security dialogue framework in the broad sense should not be incompatible with the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements but rather stand in a parallel and complementary manner, with each playing an important role in the peace and stability of the region.

(4) Regional Collective Security

Security dialogue should be further developed, creating collective security arrangements in the Asia-Pacific with the military enforcement mechanism. But there are also a number of problems that need to be resolved to that end. For example, in thinking about Asia-Pacific security, collective security arrangements lacking the participation of either the United States or China would impair, not improve, security of the region. The relationship between the United Nations' collective security and such a regional collective security framework should also be considered. The DPJ hopes to see further active discussion conducted in Japan and throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

4. UNITED NATIONS SECURITY

(1) Basic Understanding

Despite problems such as inefficient management and imperfect means of military enforcement, the United Nations plays an important role in keeping international peace and stability. Although the Kosovo issue may have revealed the limits of the UN's conflict resolution capacity, we still have no alternative available. Rather than simply pointing to and criticizing the UN's limitations, we should reform the UN to improve its capability. The DPJ considers it important to actively develop wide-ranging UN diplomacy while simultaneously promoting UN reforms.

(2) PKO Activities

According to the UN charter, one of the purposes of the United Nations is "to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: ... and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." UN negotiations, mediation and peace-keeping operations play an important role for the resolution of international disputes. Japan needs to cooperate with the UN more enthusiastically in these activities. Seven years after the International Peace Cooperation Law went into effect, Japanese people have come to understand the significance of PKO and support Japan's involvement in PKO activities. We maintain, as our basic foreign policy, that Japan should actively contribute to the maintenance of international peace through peace-keeping operations. Diet deliberations should also be launched regarding lifting the freeze on PKF activities, which include monitoring of cease-fires and disarmament and stationing in and patrolling of neutral zones.

(3) Formal UN Forces

If faced with the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the United Nations stipulates the establishment of a UN military force as a final resort. An official UN military force in the sense of one based on the special agreement(s) foreseen in Articles 42 and 43 of the United Nations Charter has yet to materialize, and the likelihood of it remains slim. However, such collective security arrangements centering on the United Nations embody the original UN spirit at the time of its establishment, and the DPJ believes that sincere efforts should continue to be made toward the creation of such a system. Wherever and whenever official l UN military forces are to be formed, the DPJ believes that Japan should participate in them.

(4) Allied Forces under UN Security Council Resolutions

A Multinational force based on a Security Council resolution similar to a UN military force was created for the Gulf War. That there are violators of world peace, and that in the last resort, armed force must be used to oppose them are historical facts as well as realities of today's world. The role of such multinational forces should therefore be recognized when based on a formal resolution reached by the Security Council after full discussion. However, as discussed earlier, it should be considered that Japan's Constitution bans participation in multinational forces where this entails the use of armed force.

Where the SDF do not use armed force, the Constitution permits their cooperation in multinational forces. However, there are cases such as the U.S. attack on Iraq, where it was not clear whether there was a Security Council resolution, and many cases can be envisaged where no clear line can be drawn as to the extent of what is defined as armed force. The DPJ therefore considers that Japan should proceed very cautiously in regard to participation by the SDF in multinational forces except with regard to post-war cooperation and cooperation in funding a multi-national force.

(5) United Nations Reforms

In the Kosovo conflict, NATO chose to exercise armed force without a UN resolution. There is some doubt as to whether full discussion was carried out in the Security Council in regard to NATO's launching the recent air attack to Yugoslavia. It is also true, however, that the basic question has been raised as to how the international community should act to maintain peace in cases where the Security Council does not function. Where the UN Security Council fails to function, there may be further cases in which major powers work together to resolve issues using armed force. But casual acceptance of such a turn of events would take the teeth out of the United Nations and could lead to indiscriminate use of military force according to the value judgements of individual major powers. The DPJ believes that the time has come to consider fundamental reform of the UN Security Council. Bearing in mind that this body was established as a result of reflection on the two world wars, the veto mechanism should also be reviewed to make the United Nations function more effectively toward the maintenance of world peace.

IV. CONCLUSION

Security is a basic consideration of politics. In a complex and unpredictable security environment, Japan should take its own autonomous strategic decisions rather than reacting passively to security challenges. The DPJ will continue to work on security issues from the basic perspective of securing the safety of Japanese citizens and ensuring an active Japanese contribution to building world peace. The basic policies presented here are first steps in that direction, and the DPJ will continue to work to realize them.


Back to Japanese Page