 |
2015/06/16
Hosono says security legislation “should be discussed by the ruling and opposition parties over the course of several Diet sessions”
|
On June 16, DPJ Policy Research Committee Chair Goshi Hosono held his regular press conference inside the Diet.
First, Hosono commented on his recent visit to the United States at the invitation of an American think-tank, who had asked him to take part in a review of the response to the Fukushima nuclear accident, in his capacity as the then Minister of State responsible for dealing with the accident. He reported, “We were able to engage in very open discussion of how the U.S.-Japan Alliance functioned four years ago and what kind of issues there were. It was an extremely valuable exchange.” Hosono also touched on his meetings with U.S. security policy makers and Japan experts, stating that they had had concrete discussions regarding the situation in the South China Sea, and exchanged information as the U.S. Congress nears a vote on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, which is an essential prerequisite for ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).
Asked for the U.S. response to the ongoing debate in Japan over national security legislation, Hosono replied, “Prime Minister Abe’s visit to the United States and the revision of the Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation were viewed with approval. The Prime Minister clearly stated that the security legislation will ‘pass the Diet during the current session’ and so the U.S. side assumes that this is exactly what is going to happen. When the person I was speaking to seemed interested I explained that the charge of ‘infringing the Constitution’ was being raised in the Diet. But generally speaking, unless that person was a real Japan buff, they just responded by saying, ‘Oh really, is that so…’” Hosono added, “This is extremely important legislation, and normally in such cases should be discussed by the ruling and opposition parties over the course of several Diet sessions with a view to obtaining public understanding. I think that the Prime Minister’s promise made in the U.S. is an extremely significant factor influencing why the government has not taken this course of action on this occasion. What’s done cannot be undone, but it is clear that things should have been carried out in a different order.”
|
|
|
 |
|
