|
On June 19, in the plenary session of the House of Councillors, DPJ member of the House of Councillors Yasuo Ichikawa spoke opposing the bill related to punishments for acts of piracy and the response to acts of piracy.
At the start of his speech, Ichikawa reiterated the DPJ’s position, saying, “Acts of piracy are the common enemy of humanity, and we totally recognize the need for countries to liaise to create a concerted response.” He also expressed the opinion that the anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia, in particular, had been the subject of a UN Security Council resolution, with nations around the world being called on to take an active role, and suggested that the operations could also be perceived as a contribution to the international community.
Ichikawa went on to explain the DPJ stance, saying that the party considered anti-piracy operations to be the sole responsibility of the Japan Coastguard, and for that reason, believed that it was necessary to make alterations to the system so that the Japan Coastguard would be able to respond. If it would be difficult for the Japan Coastguard alone to respond, then the dispatch of Self Defense Forces should take place, from the perspective of thoroughly implementing civilian control, by obtaining the prior approval of the Diet and also at the same time creating an Anti-Piracy Headquarters directly attached to the cabinet to which the dispatched troops would belong. Furthermore, regarding the expansion of the regulations regarding the use of weapons, since anti-piracy operations are a maritime policing operation, the party recognizes the need for disabling fire in order to prevent acts of piracy, in addition to the use of weapons permitted under the Police Official Duties Execution Act.
In addition, Ichikawa indicated that there was a problem with the anti-piracy legislation submitted by the government, which although indicating that anti-piracy operations were the sole province of the Japan Coastguard, stated that if the Defense Minister judged that “there was a special need” the SDF could be dispatched following a decision by the cabinet. He criticized this, saying, “I have no alternative but to say that it is extremely problematic that Maritime Self Defense Forces have been dispatched at the eleventh hour, using as a basis maritime policing operations that envisaged a short-term operation in the waters surrounding Japan, with dispatch of the SDF considered the be-all-and-end-all, so that prior to submitting the bill, investigating whether it would be really difficult for the Japan Coastguard to respond was postponed.”
When it came to anti-piracy operations in maritime waters outside those surrounding Japan, Ichikawa once more stressed that from the point of view of international cooperation as well, an anti-piracy headquarters should be established, and operations conducted with a system that included all the major players. At the same time, he reiterated that the decision as to whether it would be difficult to respond to a situation would be made by the Japan Coastguard, and the prior approval of the Diet would be essential when deciding whether to dispatch armed SDF troops to far away waters.
Ichikawa said that the DPJ, from this perspective, had engaged seriously in negotiations for amendments with the ruling parties, but that the ruling parties had repeatedly responded that “amendments were unnecessary”. He expressed his displeasure in the fact that although the DPJ had proposed the best and most appropriate amendments, the ruling parties had totally failed to understand the quality of these proposals and had returned no meaningful response, and went on to add that following the breakdown in discussions over amendments, the DPJ had no alternative but to oppose the government’s proposed legislation.
Following the debate, the legislation was rejected by 131 votes to 99.
|
.jpg)
.jpg)