 |
2015/05/27
As Special Committee starts debate on security legislation, Okada calls for government to explain “humbly” to the people and engage in “step by step” approach
|
On May 27, the Special Committee on the Legislation for Peace and Security of Japan and the International Community in the House of Representatives started debate on two pieces of security-related legislation. President Katsuya Okada was the first Diet member to take to the podium for the DPJ, questioning Prime Minister Abe on the government’s stance.
Firstly, Okada looked back over the main points of the Prime Minister’s Question Time debate on May 20. He stated, “While we value the deterrent power currently provided by the Japan-U.S. Alliance, at the same time there are also risks involved.”
Okada went on saying, “Under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, if the U.S. military launches a direct attack from U.S. bases in Japan, there is supposed to be prior consultation [with Japan]. If Japan agrees to bases being used for such an attack, then there is a possibility that the whole of Japan will become the target for an attack. The Prime Minister must make a very difficult decision in full understanding of these risks. He must make this decision by weighing up the risks that must be shouldered by the Japanese people against the benefits to be gained by maintaining the Alliance.”
Okada also questioned the Prime Minister on the Constitution, saying, “The declaration that we will not to use force overseas is the foundation of [Japan’s] pacifism. However, this legislation will permit limited use of the right to collective self-defense. Moreover, although this is not actual use of force, the logistic support provided by the SDF will be expanded so it can take place anywhere in the world. The boundaries of the logistic support provided will also be extended to areas nearer to the actual combat zone. There are increased risks that the SDF will be caught up in military conflict. The Japanese people will not agree to the current security legislation if you cannot fully assuage their anxiety that it poses a grave threat to the pacifist ideals of the Japanese Constitution.”
Okada went on to ask, “Am I right in thinking that the use of the right to collective self-defense rests on the assumption that the use of force by the United States is accepted as legitimate under international law? The United States does not rule out use of a preemptive strike. If the United States does use a preemptive strike and embarks on a war with another nation, would Japan permit the use of the collective right to self-defense or not?” Minister for Foreign Affairs Fumio Kishida responded, “Preemptive strikes are not permitted under international law. In such a case it is inconceivable that Japan would support the U.S. by exercising the right to collective self-defense.” The Prime Minister also concurred with this response.
Okada expressed the reservation that “it is not such a simple matter to decide whether a use of force is legitimate or not. If Japan were to use the right to collective self-defense in such circumstances, there is a risk we might end up exercising it in an illegal use of force.” He added, “I would like to have further discussion on the relationship between preemptive strikes and the three new conditions.”
Prime Minister Abe explained that “From actual experiences, we can see that the SDF cannot respond in a timely manner under the concept of ‘non-combat areas’. Therefore we have changed the concept of non-combat areas.” Okada called for the disclosure of information to the committee, saying, “If you have decided to make changes based on experience, it is impossible for us to discuss this issue without being provided with actual examples, i.e. SDF activities in Iraq. You should also properly report to us whether SDF troops were in any danger at such times.”
Okada went on to point out, “The area in which the SDF can operate overseas has been dramatically increased from ‘high seas around Japan and the corresponding airspace’ to ‘high seas and the corresponding airspace’. You cannot say that this does not pose increased risks. The discussion should start with the Prime Minister acknowledging this point.”
Okada stressed to the Prime Minister, “Such issues need to be dealt with carefully, obtaining public understanding and changing the framework step by step. This time the government is intending to create permanent laws at a single stroke. I would like the government not to try to do everything in one fell swoop, but to respond humbly.”
|
|
|
 |
|
