 |
2014/04/01
Statement regarding the Cabinet approval of “Three principles regarding defense equipment transfer”
|
On April 1, the Chair of the DPJ General Research Committee on Security, Toshimi Kitazawa, Next Minister of Defence Shu Watanabe, Next Minister for Foreign Affairs Tetsuro Fukuyama, and Next Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Kaname Tajima issued the following statement.
Today, the government announced “Three principles regarding defense equipment transfer”.
On December 27, 2011, the Noda Cabinet established “Guidelines for Overseas Transfer of Defense Equipment etc.” These clearly established the rule that, while continuing to adhere to the existing “Three Principles on Arms Exports” which are “based on the basic philosophy of Japan as a peaceful nation that seeks to avoid the aggravation of international conflicts”, Japan would allow the overseas transfer of defence equipment to take place under strict control in cases that contribute to peace and international cooperation, and in cases when engaging in international efforts to jointly develop and manufacture defence equipment or the like contributes to the security of Japan.
However, there is a risk that these new principles [of the Abe administration] will damage the philosophy of Japan as a peace-loving nation, considering that although they state Japan will not transfer defence equipment and the like to countries involved in conflict, it has been pointed out that if we apply the stated conditions to past examples, the only countries applicable would be North Korea and Iraq.
Furthermore, the government proposal emphasizes maintaining the transparency of arms exports, but there is little sense that they have established a systematic procedure for guaranteeing such transparency.
The Democratic Party of Japan believes it is necessary, in accordance with the philosophy of Japan as a peace-loving nation, to scrutinize the content and the management of the new “Three Principles” approved by the Abe Cabinet, and to carefully investigate them through Diet debate and the like.
|
|
|
 |
|