On May 29, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense in the House of Councillors investigated foreign affairs and defence issues relating to the reconstruction of the legal basis for security. DPJ Diet member Tetsuro Fukuyama asked questions on behalf of the DPJ caucus in the upper house. He called on Prime Minister Abe and others to clarify the administration’s position on the following issues: (1) informal meetings of the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security, (2) the perception of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, (3) protecting U.S. transport vessels transporting Japanese nationals, and (4) the SDF coming to the defence of other countries’ troops or nationals.

Fukuyama first pointed out that the report issued by the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security had been handed to the Prime Minister after its 7th meeting had been held on May 15, meaning that approximately 100 days had passed since the 6th meeting of the Panel on February 2. He said that since March he had repeatedly questioned the administration, in the Committee on Budget in the House of Councillors and elsewhere, about the convening of meetings of the Advisory Panel, and expressed his concerns that informal meetings had actually been held on numerous occasions during this time. He said that his questioning had revealed informal meetings had been held on eight occasions, and stressed that if the Prime Minister wished to obtain the consent of the public, a careful explanation of the reasons behind this was due. Fukuyama went on to call on the Prime Minister to release documentation and minutes of the informal meetings.

In response, Abe replied, “Some of the meetings took place with only a few members to thrash out issues,” and “The most important thing for the Advisory Panel was to reach a conclusion” and avoided making specific comments regarding the disclosure of a summary of minutes. Following this answer, Fukuyama called for documents and a summary of minutes to be submitted to the Committee, and it was agreed that this matter should be discussed at a meeting of senior Committee members.

Fukuyama continued, saying, “I would like to confirm one point as we proceed with the debate over the exercise of the right to collective self-defence.” He said that “Two days ago the Director-General of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau responded to Diet questions saying that the idea that the exercise of the right to self-defence should be limited to the absolute minimum necessary to defend our nation is not a quantitative concept relating to the right to collective self-defence, but I would like to confirm this.” Cabinet Legislation Bureau Director-General Yokobatake read out a statement made by a predecessor in the Committee on Budget of the House of Representatives on January 26, 2004, stating, “The right of collective self-defence is the exercise of power on behalf of a foreign nation, despite the fact that our nation is not experiencing a military attack, and does not fulfil the first condition of exercising the right to individual self-defence, which is that our nation should be under military attack. Therefore, traditionally there is a tendency to explain the right of collective self-defence as being something which exceeds the absolute minimum necessary for self-defence, but here we are saying in fact that it does not fulfil the first condition [for individual self-defence.] There is not something that relates to quantitative concepts in the way that you suggest.”

Fukuyama said that he had felt uneasy about the example cited by the Prime Minister in his press conference of May 15, where he had mentioned protecting United States transport vessels transporting Japanese nationals, and citing Abe’s remark, “Is it really acceptable that I and the Japanese government, who have responsibility to protect the lives of such people, can do nothing at all?”, pointed out that previous administrations, whether LDP or DPJ, had not been of the opinion of that it was acceptable to do nothing. He said that the Prime Minister’s remark risked giving the mistaken impression that the Japanese government could do nothing.

Fukuyama explained that if any warning signs could be picked up in the event of a contingency situation occurring on the Korean Peninsula or elsewhere, it would be vital for MOFA to obtain information from all possible routes, including via the Japanese Nationals Overseas Safety Division in the Consular Affairs Bureau, and support the speedy return home of Japanese nationals. He said that on such an occasion using private aircraft and shipping to transport people was the norm, and it would be a normal operation for any Japanese nationals left behind for various reasons to be transported by U.S. military transport planes and SDF C130s. He went on to say that there are movements internationally for nations to assist and transport each other’s nationals, and revealed that it is written in Article 84 Clause 3 of the SDF law that transporting Japanese nationals living overseas is permitted. Fukuyama also referred to the fact that SDF troops have been granted the right to use weapons for self-preservation. Pointing out that under existing legislation “It is not the case that we can do nothing,” he asked for the Prime Minister’s opinion on this point.

Prime Minister Abe responded, “There may be cases in which Japanese nationals would be transported by United States vessels in order that they can escape from conflict situations.” He cited the situation in Libya in 2011 as one instance of this, saying, “It is possible that a similar situation might arise in a country neighbouring Japan. The Director-General of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has stated that the SDF cannot take protective measures in such a case. It seems only natural that we should consider what legislative framework would be needed in this case.”

Fukuyama pointed out that the Libyan example involved rescuing Japanese nationals from large-scale demonstrations, and that in the case of such conflicts as those cited by the Prime Minister, (1) it was inconceivable that the United States would transport civilians on military vessels that would be at high risk of being the target of an attack, (2) in the unlikely eventuality that U.S. military vessels were to transport civilians it would be unthinkable that the U.S. would not provide accompanying vessels as escort.” He stressed that the example provided by the Prime Minister in his press conference, in which he implied that the SDF would need to provide “an escort for U.S. transport vessels transporting Japanese nationals” would invite misunderstandings, and exposed the ambiguity of Abe’s example scenario.