 |
2015/06/17
Okada in QT debate: “PM bears heavy responsibility for obtaining Cabinet approval without Diet discussion or public support”
|
On June 17, DPJ President Katsuya Okada represented the DPJ in Prime Minister’s Question Time, debating various issues with Prime Minister Abe.
●Has Japan’s security environment been “fundamentally transformed”?
Okada commented on the possible use of the collective right to self-defense, saying, “Constitutional experts, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and former LDP lawmakers are all concerned that there is an infringement of the Constitution.” He asked the Prime Minister, “The government has explained that ‘the security environment surrounding Japan has been fundamentally transformed’, and hence it is necessary for our nation to exercise the right to collective self-defense. Let’s look at the example of minesweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz, which the government frequently cites as a case where the use of the right to collective self-defense is needed. How has the security environment in the Strait of Hormuz been fundamentally transformed?” Prime Minister Abe, however, did not explain whether there had been any fundamental transformation or not in his response.
●What precisely are “situations that threaten Japan’s survival”?
Okada asked “The Prime Minister says that [contingencies on the Korean Peninsula] are ‘situations that threaten Japan’s survival’. What elements turn a ‘situation that will have an important influence on Japan’s [peace and security]’ into a ‘situation that threatens Japan’s survival’?” The Prime Minister simply replied to this by saying, “”Decisions on individual situations will need to be made by considering a variety of matters, depending on the case in question. We will make the appropriate decision on a case-by-case basis.”
Okada lambasted Abe’s response, saying, “That is just no answer at all. It is tantamount to saying that the decision of whether or not to use military force or whether or not a particular case infringes against the Constitution will be left in the hands of the Cabinet of the day. That’s like issuing them with a blank cheque. No other nation operates like this. If you behave like this Japan cannot be a constitutional nation.”
●Prime Minister Abe bears responsibility for creating problems for future generations
Okada went on to cite the possible future imposition of conscription as an example similar to Prime Minister Abe’s unilateral alteration of the interpretation of the Constitution. He stated, “The Prime Minister says that imposing conscription is inconceivable under the Constitution, but he is the very prime minister who had his Cabinet approve the use of the collective right to self-defense, something that had never been allowed by successive cabinets, without any debate in the Diet and without obtaining the support of the public.” Okada condemned Abe, stating, “Considering that we now face the danger of a future prime minister obtaining Cabinet approval for conscription by stating that it is congruent with the Constitution, the Prime Minister bears a heavy responsibility for his actions.”
Okada concluded by stressing, “The DPJ is proposing a Territorial Security Act. We also suggest strengthening the provisions of the Law Concerning Measures to Ensure the Peace and Security of Japan in Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan. The right to individual self-defense can also be used. In our opinion, situations in areas surrounding Japan can be dealt with by using the right to individual self-defense. The right to collective self-defense is unnecessary.”
|
|
|
 |
|
