|
On October 3, DPJ Secretary General Yukio Edano questioned government ministers in a session of the Committee on Budget in the House of Representatives.
At the start of his speech, Edano referred to the issue of abductions of Japanese citizens by North Korea (DPRK). He stated that all Japanese political parties should work together to find a resolution to this issue, and stressed that while the government should use a combination of dialogue and pressure when dealing with the DPRK, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe should consider placing more emphasis on using pressure under current circumstances.
Edano went on to refer to July’s cabinet decision on the use of collective self-defense. He expressed approval for the fact that the cabinet decision upheld the Japanese government’s view of 1972, which states “Such measures for self-defense are permitted only when they are inevitable for dealing with imminent unlawful situations where the people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is fundamentally overturned due to an armed attack by a foreign country, and for safeguarding these rights of the people. Hence, ‘use of force’ to the minimum extent necessary to that end is permitted.” Edano went on, “It is appropriate that the cabinet decision has set limits for reinterpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution within the range dictated by logical consistency”. With this in mind, Edano called on Prime Minister Abe and other Ministers including minister in charge of regional revitalization Shigeru Ishiba, to confirm they shared this view. While the Prime Minister told Edano, “This is the unanimous view of the Cabinet,” Ishiba avoided commenting on the issue. Edano pointed out the dangers this revealed, saying “As you can see from Ishiba’s stance, the definition of this concept may change every time there is a change of Prime Minister.”
Edano then cited the Prime Minister’s explanation, that under the three new conditions, “the Government has reached the conclusion that, in light of changes in the current security environment, cases which correspond to imminent and unlawful situations involve not only those when an armed attack against Japan occurs but also when an armed attack against a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan occurs.”
He criticized this, stating “Until recently, the consensus was that Japan could not engage in the use of force for self-defense unless an actual armed attack against our nation was to occur, in accordance with the government view [of 1972]. Nevertheless, following the recent cabinet decision, Japan is allowed to engage in the use of force if it only faces what the government judges to be a clear danger, even if we have not yet reached a situation where the people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is fundamentally overturned. These two interpretations are totally different.”
The Prime Minister has commented that should conflict in the Straits of Hormuz cause a delay in petroleum imports to Japan, Japan’s participation in minesweeping operations in the Straits would fall within the scope of the use of force for self-defense. Edano criticized this position, pointing out that, “A delay in energy imports, caused by a conflict, does not correspond to the case of an actual armed attack on Japan, as specified in the government’s 1972 view. It is impossible to view these two eventualities as identical”.
Edano expressed concern regarding the Prime Minister’s repeated explanation that, under the three new conditions, “the use of force to the minimum extent necessary” would be limited to passive activities like minesweeping operations in the Straits of Hormuz. He pointed out to Abe that “If an enemy nation were to attack Japanese SDF troops while they were undertaking minesweeping operations, such an attack would cause the situation to escalate to one where the use of force would be exercised for individual self-defense. Clearly the grounds for “the use of force to the minimum extent necessary” are vague.”
In conclusion, Edano pointed out that “We did not receive a clear answer regarding the scope of the phrase ‘clear danger’, and with regard to the ‘Use of force to the minimum extent necessary’ we only had the Prime Minister’s subjective opinion. We have not received any assurances from the government.”
|
