|
On May 28, intensive debate on the right to collective self-defence and other issues took place in the Committee on Budget in the House of Representatives. The first interpellator representing the DPJ was Diet member Katsuya Okada who questioned Prime Minister Abe on the following issues: (1) the two specific examples cited by the Prime Minister during his press conference of May 15, (2) the relationship between the Constitution and pacifism, (3) deterrence and exercise of the right to collective self-defence, and (4) limits to the exercise of the right to collective self-defence.
One example cited by the Prime Minister in his press conference was that “If a contingency were to arise in the waters surrounding Japan, the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) would not be able to defend Japanese nationals on board United States vessels.” In relation to this, Okada asked Abe for his opinion on what the response should be if Japanese nationals were on board vessels of a third country rather than the United States.
Abe avoided answering this question, and Okada continued, “If a contingency arose for example on the Korean Peninsula, it is quite plausible that Japanese citizens would be transported using vessels in the Republic of Korea belonging to a variety of nations. To suggest that you would not respond to such people, but would only exercise the right to collective self-defence with regard to those on board American vessels, is the ridiculous result you get when you apply the criteria of the right to collective self-defence in this case. Shouldn’t you rather, for example, endeavour to create a framework under which Japanese nationals could be protected whatever the nationality of the vessel they happened to be on board of, such as by establishing criteria regarding seaborne policing actions or similar. The Prime Minister is rather too eager to establish concrete examples for the right to collective self-defence, and failing in his duty from the perspective of whether he will really be able to protect Japanese citizens.”
The Prime Minister had commented with regard to the Constitution and pacifism in his press conference, “The JSDF will never participate in armed conflicts in other countries where military force is the object of such participation.” Okada referred to this comment and pointed out that this was at odds with the definition of the right to collective self-defence. In response, Abe amended his comment, saying: “What I meant was that when participating in collective security, we would not advocate the stance of participating in armed conflicts where military force is the object of such participation.” Okada obtained confirmation that the right to collective self-defence would not apply in such cases.
Prime Minister Abe has cited the increase in deterrent capabilities as one reason for requiring the exercise of the right to collective self-defence to be permitted. Okada asked how deterrent capabilities would be increased if the right to collective self-defence was exercised in the case of a country other than the United States being attacked. Abe replied, “Suppose for example that the foreign and defence ministers of both countries are holding consultations and working to increase bilateral security cooperation. At the same time, the JSDF is engaging in joint manoeuvres with navies from countries other than the United States. In a sense this has a deterrent effect.” He stressed that proceeding with such efforts would ensure Japan’s peace and security. Okada commented, “The issue is that this would involve the collective right to self-defence, which is the use of force, not simply whether it would deepen relations. Since there are no limitations or guidelines regarding the exercise of the right to collective self-defence, this poses the risk that it could be exercised in any eventuality.”
Furthermore, with regard to the exercise of the right to collective self-defence in the event of an attack on the United States, Okada stated that, if Japan were to exercise the right to self-defence in such a case, a prerequisite for this would be that the military action taken as a precursor to this by the United States was a legitimate use of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with international law. He expressed doubt as to whether Japan would definitely be able to make a judgement on this, or to say “No” as a result of such a judgement, saying, “The impact on the Japan-U.S. alliance of refusing to exercise the right to collective self-defence after saying that it can be used, is greater than saying that the right to collective self-defence cannot be used [in the first place]. Instead of making grandiose pronouncements, you should be discussing how to set proper limitations, and state clearly when it cannot be exercised.”
With regard to limiting the exercise of the right to collective self-defence, Okada commented on the position that a situation in which the supply of oil to Japan was limited would be included in situations having ‘the potential to significantly affect the security of Japan’, saying, “The situation in which oil is no longer coming into Japan and things are tough economically cannot be ranked as one comparable to that requiring individual self-defence. I am concerned about expanding the scope so far.” In response the Prime Minister said, “We will not go with the intent of engaging in military action. When it is necessary to carry out mine-sweeping of sea-channels, there is the issue of whether it is really appropriate for the SDF not to act to protect commercial shipping from countries other than Japan that is passing though on the way to Japan. Should we really be leaving it up to other countries?”
Okada stated, “Removing mines which have been set is considered a military action under international law. There is the possibility that it would be considered as a military action, and there might be retaliatory action which would lead to conflict. It may not necessarily be the case that things would come to an end with the removal of the mines.” He ended his speech by saying, “The issue of the right to collective self-defence is extremely serious. There is the possibility that it will lead to combat and to Japan getting caught up in a war, and so it is a significant matter for the Japanese people. That is why it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to ensure that thorough debate takes place, and to create a situation in which the majority of the Japanese people are persuaded that we have no alternative but [to exercise collective self-defence] in such and such a case. It should be discussed seriously and carefully, considering its gravity, as you are proposing to radically alter the direction of the discussion which has gone on in the Diet throughout the post-war period.”
|
