|
On May 20, DPJ President Katsuya Okada engaged in the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of this Diet session and his first since being appointed party leader, questioning Prime Minister Abe on the security legislation that is being pursued by his Cabinet and other issues.
●Japan’s 70 years of postwar peace and its relation to the Constitution
Okada pointed out that one crucial reason for the 70 years of peace enjoyed by Japan since the end of WWII “is the Japan-U.S. Alliance. It is an undisputable fact that Japan’s security has been maintained by the deterrent power of the United States.” He expressed his opinion that “Another reason is the Constitution. Japan’s peace has been maintained through an environment in which the use of military force overseas has been prevented by the pacifist Constitution and by Article 9 of that Constitution.” He added, “The Japanese people, and indeed I myself, are concerned that the pacifist Constitution will be threatened by the current comprehensive review of security-related legislation. The Prime Minister needs to give us an honest explanation regarding this point. This subject is crucial to the lives and peaceful livelihoods of the people, and so I would like him to discuss it properly.”
●The risks posed to the SDF by logistics support to be provided under new security legislation
Up until now logistics support given to the armed forces of the United States and other nations by the SDF has only been permitted in non-combat zones (areas where combat is not currently taking place and where it has been judged that combat will not take place during the time in which the SDF is providing logistics support). However, under the new security legislation, logistics support can be provided in any areas apart from those where “combat is currently taking place.” With regard to this point, Okada suggested that the risk faced by SDF troops would greatly increase, pointing out: “However one looks at it, it seems that the scope of the SDF’s activity has been dramatically increased…The content of their activity has also changed. They will be able to transport weapons and ammunition, as well as armed soldiers. While they may not go to the battleground itself, they will go near to it. In warfare it is common to talk of cutting off the enemy’s supplies, and so from the point of view of enemy troops, SDF troops transporting U.S. troops and weapons will be seen as hostile troops. It would be strange if the enemy didn’t decide to attack them. If SDF troops are together with U.S. troops and those of other nations then there is a risk that they will get caught up in combat situations.”
In response, the Prime Minister Abe made a long-winded reply, that did not directly respond to concerns over increased risk, saying, “When SDF have actually been engaging in providing logistics support, they have experienced cases where they were not able to provide timely assistance under the concept [of non-combat zones]. This time we have stated that they can operate in areas outside of the actual battlefield itself, and clearly stipulate that if combat occurs, then according to a prompt decision made by the leader of the troop, they will either temporarily suspend operations or withdraw.” He added, “SDF troops are not heavily-armed, so naturally we will select areas where there is little risk of them being caught up in combat…Since SDF troops will be bringing supplies, of course they will not go to places where there is a risk of those supplies being taken…We will undertake logistics support in places which are secure and I would like us to continue to provide assistance in such places.”
Okada criticized the Prime Minister’s response, saying, “Current legislation already includes provisions permitting SDF troops to suspend their operations or withdraw. The Prime Minister says that they will be transporting food supplies, but they will also transport weapons and ammunition and armed troops. He should make this point clear.”
●Limited use of right to collective self-defense, incidents that threaten the existence of Japan
Okada said that if a use of the right to collective self-defense corresponded to the three new conditions, it would naturally mean that the SDF would go into the territory, territorial waters or airspace of other nations and engage in the use of force there, and asked whether any limitations would be applied in such cases.
Prime Minister replied, “It is clear that the SDF will not engage in the use of force if [a situation] does not correspond to the three new conditions. [The new conditions]also stipulate that the actual use of force will be limited to the minimum extent necessary, and the current government proposal also upholds the principle that the dispatch of troops overseas will not be generally permitted…The SDF will not be dispatched to foreign soil for the purpose of engaging in military action, nor will they engage in the use of force to accompany large-scale aerial bombardment.”
Okada responded to this clear statement by the Prime Minister that the use of force would not extend to the territory, territorial waters or airspace of other nations. He expressed strong skepticism, saying, “In the event that U.S. forces are engaged in combat that is taking place in their opponent’s territory, territorial waters or airspace, it will not be possible for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense without the SDF actually going there. Therefore, I think the government’s draft proposal should really be interpreted as meaning that this kind of circumstance may naturally be expected to occur.” He went on the offensive, saying, “If it truly is as the Prime Minister has stated, then I would like you to amend the proposal. You should clearly stipulate in the law that the right to collective self-defense will not be exercised in the territory, territorial waters or airspace of other nations.”
Okada concluded, “If the Prime Minister claims that this is necessary for the sake of the lives and the peaceful livelihoods of the Japanese people, then he must discuss the matter, admitting honestly to the public that there is a risk, but that it is necessary. If he does not do so then he will not receive public approval. I am opposed to the use of the collective right to self-defense. If the Prime Minister says that it is necessary, then I would like him to explain [this point].”
|
