 |
 |
2014/04/04
Kitazawa poses questions to PM regarding national security strategy, defence
|
 |
|
|
In the morning of April 4, Diet member Yoshimi Kitazawa represented the DPJ in the plenary session of the House of Councillors, asking questions regarding various security and defence-related issues.
Firstly, Kitazawa referred to the National Security Strategy, pointing out “This emphasizes a proactive contribution to peace, but I feel there is something fishy about it. The Prime Minister calls for ‘escape from the post-war regime’, and makes no secret of his admiration for nationalism and military power.” Kitazawa also referred to comments made by the Prime Minister’s close aide, Seiichi Eto, regarding the United States government’s expression of disappointment with the Prime Minister’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine, in which Eto said that ‘It is the Japanese side who is disappointed.’ Kitazawa said that “However much the Prime Minister emphasizes the phrase ‘a proactive contribution to peace’, it is thus only natural that [his commitment] to this seems dubious.” He went on to ask the Prime Minister what kind of nation he intended to create after breaking with the post-war regime.
The Prime Minister replied, “I want us to break free of the mentality in which we believe that it is impossible to change any part of the basic framework of our nation, beginning with the Constitution and also including education and national security, and for the Japanese people to have the grit to build up their nation with their own hands. I believe that it is this kind of feeling that will serve as the impetus for us to carve out a new Japan. ”
Kitazawa pointed out that fully-fledged leadership summits had not taken place with the Republic of Korea and China under the Abe administration, and that the prospects for bilateral relations had not improved despite the efforts of the United States to act as a go-between. In addition to this, he said the United States had stated it was ‘disappointed’ with the Yasukuni visit and that relations with Russia were also at an impasse, due to the situation in the Crimea, so that Japan was beset on all sides diplomatically. Kitazawa commented, “It seems to me that the Abe administration has only itself to blame for this situation. The Prime Minister’s individual philosophy has been prioritized, and with his close aides repeating statements based on a narrow-minded nationalism, despite the Prime Minister’s retractions of previous statements and the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s denials of comments made by the Prime Minister’s advisors, the international community suspects that Prime Minister’s true feelings are different and has spotted the double standards practiced by the Abe administration.” Kitazawa mentioned that since the Cabinet of Shigeru Yoshida, successive LDP Cabinets had worked hard to reach the decision to adopt the stance of a strictly defensive national security policy and pacifism, this being a significant strategic decision. He commented, “Our predecessors have endured what had to be endured and taken a difficult decision with our national interest in mind. That is why the majority of the Japanese people support this, and the international community also highly values Japan’s stance. The underlying foundation for Prime Minister Yoshida and the others was realism, and that was supported by endurance, a deep historical insight, and an inspirational loyalty. That is why they were able to lead a nation and a people who had lost their sovereignty after being defeated in war, and provide the impetus for us to get through the post-war period.” He went on to state that the first step Prime Minister Abe could take to extract himself from this impasse would be to dismiss the aides who have been repeating remarks that differ from the government’s position, and asked Abe for his response.
Kitazawa went on to express his concern regarding the ‘Three Principles Regarding Defense Equipment Transfer’ that had been approved by the Abe Cabinet, saying, “I am afraid that this will lead us to step away from the basic philosophy of Japan as a peace-loving nation which is espoused by the existing ‘Three Principles on Arms Exports’”
Kitazawa stated, “The subject of today’s debate is the Defense Program Guidelines, which were established by the Abe Cabinet last December. Three years prior to that, in December 2010, the Kan Cabinet established what was known as the “Heisei 22” Guidelines, and I was the Minister responsible.” He went on to explain that the rationale behind this was the need to sweep away the remnants of the Cold War security framework, and develop a defence posture befitting the new era, and this had resulted in a significant shift from the concept of a ‘Basic Defense Force’, which had been in place for 34 years, to a ‘Dynamic Defense Force’. Kitazawa commented, “Instead of a posture which had in mind the Far East armies of the Soviet Union, we emphasized the defence of Japan’s south-west. In order to heighten defence force effectiveness under difficult fiscal conditions, the plan was to emphasis information-gathering capabilities and deployment capabilities. Looking back, I feel proud to think that we established a national defence strategy for a new era through these Guidelines.” He went on to say, “With this in mind, my impression when I read the new Defense Program Guidelines was in a nutshell: what humbug!” He stated that many of the key points had “already been included in the Heisei 22 Guidelines” and added, “Even with regard to the key point of these Guidelines, a ‘Dynamic Joint Defense Force’, it was difficult for me to see where it differed from the ‘Dynamic Defense Force’ we established, or at least, I could not find sufficient difference to justify a change of name.” Kitazawa stressed the “importance of continuity and stability in defence policy”.
Kitazawa also posed questions regarding the Advisory Panel on the Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security. He explained that the DPJ had put together a position regarding the use of the right to collective self-defence which emphasized the following three principles: (1) restrictions from the point of view of constitutionalism, (2) limitations based on the rule of law, (3) the need to ensure legal stability. Kitazawa stated, “Whatever changes there are in various circumstances [surrounding Japan] and whatever new demands might arise from them, the scope for the Cabinet itself to change the interpretation of the Constitution is limited to that which can logically deduced while maintaining consistency with the existing interpretation. Opportunistic and deliberate changes in the interpretation of the Constitution by the Cabinet are unacceptable in terms of constitutionalism and the rule of law. It is unacceptable to directly deny the existing Cabinet interpretation relating to the exercise of the right to collective self-defence, which states that it is not permissible under Article 9 of the Constitution and does not permit its use, and to change the interpretation to permit the exercise of the right to collective self-defence in general.” He added, “The Prime Minister has made comments regarding such a significant change in the interpretation of the Constitution as that relating to the right to collective self-defence, saying that ‘I am the chief executive. We are the ones subject to the people’s verdict at the ballot box.’ This is certainly a comment that we cannot let passed unchallenged. Even if one is the Prime Minister, making changes that are not consistent with the existing interpretation is unacceptable in terms of constitutionalism. Saying that the election result means that your interpretation of the Constitution has won the confidence of the people is a shoddy and far-fetched argument.” He went on to ask the Prime Minister: “There is a limit to the changes of interpretation that can be carried out by the administration, and surely one ought not to assent to unacceptable changes of interpretation such as this, which pose risks and lack legal stability. Why are you trying to change the interpretation of the Constitution rather than carry out revision of the Constitution with respect to exercising the right to collective self-defence?”
The Prime Minister replied that he would like to wait to hear the conclusions of the Advisory Panel, but stated, “In the Advisory Panel, we have heard that the Constitution does not contain specific provisions relating to both the right to individual self-defence and the right to collective self-defence, and use of the right to individual self-defence has been permitted by our national government establishing an interpretation of the Constitution. The opinion has been expressed that, if that is the case, then in addition to the right to individual self-defence, it ought also to be possible for the government to take the decision to permit the use of the right to collective self-defence by setting forth a new interpretation in the appropriate manner, and in this case, the stipulation that a revision of the Constitution is needed does not apply.”
Kitazawa mentioned that he had been born before the start of WWII and was in the lower grades of elementary school when the war ended, and as such was one of the few Diet members who remembered the suffering and poverty which the war had caused to households throughout Japan. He stressed, “I strongly believe that the last line of defence in preventing a nation from going to war is its parliament. When I see how Prime Minister Abe has ignored the authority of the Committee Chairs, and how he silences heckling in an abrupt manner, scenes from our past history during which the Diet self-destructed and Japan collapsed as a nation state pass through the back of my mind. It is my fervent wish that the Prime Minister will develop into an individual who possesses the humility and composure that is required of a nation’s leader, and that we parliamentarians will also once more become conscious of the heavy responsibility that we bear.”
|
|
|
| ▲このページのトップへ |
|
