ニュース 2015/07/03 Edano challenges the discrepancy between the Government’s 1972 view and the three new conditions On July 3, DPJ Secretary General Yukio Edano posed questions to members of the Abe Cabinet during a session of the Special Committee on Legislation for the Peace and Security of Japan and the International Community in the House of Representatives. A series of remarks had been made at a study group of LDP junior Diet members denying the freedom of expression and press, and showing disrespect to the people of Okinawa. Edano started by remonstrating with Prime Minister Abe, saying: “LDP Diet member Hideo Onishi has been reprimanded by the party’s executive board, but has continued to repeat similar remarks even after receiving a warning. At the study group, remarks were also made that totally disregarded both the feeling of the people in Okinawa and the burden which they have been forced to bear.” Throughout the recent Diet deliberations, the government has explained repeatedly that Japan is permitted to use force only when dealing with imminent and unlawful infringements against itself, as concluded in its 1972 view, and the portion of the 1972 view that says the exercise of the right to collective self-defense is not permitted under the Constitution has been changed due to the transformation of the security environment surrounding Japan. Edano pointed out, however, that the reference to “imminent and unlawful infringements”, which is the basic logic of the government’s argument, has been omitted from the three new conditions [regarding the use of the right to collective self-defense.]. Edano exposed this contradiction in the government position, saying, “What happened to the basic logic that should have remained unchanged? The government has replaced this [basic logic, ‘imminent and unlawful infringements’] by the expression ‘a clear danger”, accordingly broadening the definition.” Cabinet Legislation Bureau Director-General Yusuke Yokobatake responded that “The three new conditions comprise not only an occurrence of an armed attack against a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan, but also constitutionally when Japan’s survival is threatened and a clear danger posed to fundamentally overturn people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Taken together that is equivalent to situations corresponding to ‘imminent and unlawful infringements’ in the government’s view of 1972.” Later the same day, Edano spoke to reporters inside the Diet building, saying, “The government was obviously not able to explain the basic point of ‘imminent and unlawful situations’ in the government’s view of 1972 by means of the three new conditions. Since they are unable to respond logically, their argument that the government’s view of 1972 forms the basis for the three new conditions has collapsed.”