|
On June 27, the DPJ’s General Research Committee on the Constitution and General Research Committee on Security, which had been tasked by President Banri Kaieda with drawing up the party’s position on the ongoing moves by the LDP-New Komeito coalition of Prime Minister Abe toward allowing the use of the right to collective self-defence, convened a joint meeting, agreed on their joint position on the issue, and submitted the results to Kaieda.
The document approved by the joint meeting of both General Research Committees is entitled “Our Position Regarding the government’s Fifteen Scenarios”. It criticises the “fifteen scenarios” set forth by the government as cases which necessitate the use of the right to collective self-defence, stating that they have not been sufficiently explained by the government, occupy an ambiguous position and have not been explained in a definitive way. It also explains that “Based on the developments in the negotiations between the ruling parties and the situation in which Cabinet approval is to be forcibly obtained, it is necessary to express the DPJ’s basic position on this issue to the Japanese public.”
The DPJ’s basic position is (1) the party will maintain an ‘exclusively defence-orientated policy’, under the auspices of Japan’s peace constitution, and will continue to hold fast to the basic principle that Japan will not become a military power that poses a threat to other countries, as set forth in the party platform and the 2010 Defence Program Guidelines established at the time of the DPJ administration, (2) at the same time, with reference to the changes in the circumstances surrounding Japan, the party will continue to consider whether new demands have arisen and take the necessary response from the perspective of protecting our nation’s territory, territorial waters and the lives and property of citizens, (3) we do not deny that, considering the basic principles of legal interpretation, there is scope for the Cabinet to change the interpretation of the Constitution. However, the scope for such an interpretation is limited to that which can be logically derived by maintaining consistency with existing interpretations. Changes made opportunistically and deliberately by the Cabinet run counter to constitutionalism and the rule of law and are unacceptable, (4) in the context of the fundamentals of constitutionalism and the rule of law, it is unacceptable to directly deny the existing Cabinet interpretation of the Constitution relating to 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 of the Constitution to permit the exercise of the right to collective self-defence in general, (5) if the scope of the “use of force” which our nation is permitted to take can be arbitrarily expanded and contracted or changed depending upon decisions made by the Cabinet, this may cause issues internationally, and in addition there will inevitably be confusion within the Self Defense Forces regarding this. Therefore, changes in interpretation which will create a loss of legal stability and pose such risks are unacceptable, (6) The DPJ will take responsibility for the peace and stability of the Asian-Pacific region, and pursue truly realistic national security policies which maintain the balance between diplomacy and security. Meanwhile, the Abe administration is stressing the approval of the use of the right to collective self-defence, while continuing with unnecessary provocation of neighbouring countries. This behaviour is inconsistent and chaotic. (7) We strongly oppose and protest the government’s approach of making hasty decisions regarding significant issues that affect the security of our nation and lives of our citizens without conducting an open debate in the Diet which also involves the public.
With regard to the fifteen scenarios, the party declared that “basically we should respond by utilising the policing function of the Japan Coast Guard and the like,” and “It is unlikely that there is a high probability or urgency with regard to these scenarios, and they should be a subject for future consideration.”
Following the joint meeting of the General Research Committees, the Chair of the General Research Committee on the Constitution Yukio Edano and the Chair of the General Research Committee on Security Toshimi Kitazawa held a press conference, and explained the main points of the party position. Edano stated, “I believe that we have on this occasion succeeded in drawing up our party’s position while maintaining consistency with the current basic way of thinking regarding the Constitution.” He urged the ruling parties to engage in a debate strong enough to stand up to the scrutiny of future generations. Asked where the DPJ’s position differed from the stance of the ruling parties, which called for “limited authorization” of the exercise of the right to collective self-defence, he responded, “Our party’s does not totally eliminate the scope for limited authorization. The government’s position known as “the argument for limited authorization” currently being communicated through the media is not being explained in a way which maintains logical consistency with past interpretations, and this is not acceptable under our party’s position.”
Kitazawa explained, “It was necessary for us to clarify our position regarding the approval of the use of the collective right to self-defence, which is an issue which will dramatically change our nation’s history, and we have spent a considerable number of days in reaching our conclusion.” Asked by a reporter “Would I be right in understanding your position to be that at the present time you do not find any scenario for which there is a pressing need to consider use of the right to collective self-defence?” Kitazawa replied “That is correct. During the talks between the ruling parties they started to realize the same thing, so I think that is why they stopped considering the fifteen scenarios and suddenly focused on the debate of the “three conditions”. It is as if they are hastening forward without any scenario that will provide grounds [for their argument.]”
|
