|
On May 26, debate over two pieces of security legislation began in the plenary session of the House of Representatives. DPJ Secretary General Yukio Edano represented the DPJ in the interpellatory session.
1. Responsibility of national self-defense
At the start of his speech, Edano touched on the concept of “dynamic defense” that had been developed when the DPJ was in power. He pointed out that, considering the changes in the security environment surrounding Japan, the most pressing and important legislative revisions that can be made in order to protect Japan’s territory and territorial waters are to reinforce the defense of islands to the south-west of Japan, and in particular to create a structure that allows seamless liaison and division of roles between the coastguard and the police, and the SDF. He called on the Prime Minister to address this issue, saying, “I do not deny the importance of international contributions such as participation in peace-keeping operations, but as a sovereign nation, Japan first of all ought to prioritize the revision of legislation relating to her own territory and territorial waters.”
2. Subjective conditions for right to collective self-defense
Edano commented on the subjective condition applied to the use of the right to collective self-defense. He pointed out, “The three new conditions contain the ambiguous subjective condition ‘[an attack against another country] threatens Japan’s survival and poses a clear danger to fundamentally overturn people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.’ This has greatly increased the possibility of the government making arbitrary decisions.” Edano referred to the divisions in the ruling parties over whether economic reasons could amount to “incidents posing a fundamental threat”. He criticized this, saying, “[The government’s use of the phrase] ‘general decision’ is equivalent to saying that the decision should be left up to the administration, and amounts to nothing less than an acknowledgement by the government that the potential for wide discretionary powers exists.”
3. Use of the collective right to self-defense “to the minimum extent necessary”
Edano pointed out that “the expression ‘the minimum extent necessary’ contained in the three new conditions is basically consistent with international law. Under international law ‘the minimum extent necessary’ means that a nation should engage in the use of force to a degree that is equivalent to that used by the opponent nation. In other words, to maintain this equilibrium, entering into the opponent nation’s territory or territorial waters could potentially be included in ‘the minimum extent necessary’, and it may even be possible to include aerial bombardment of the opponent’s military installations.” Edano also expressed doubts as to “why minesweeping operations [in the Strait of Hormuz] have been treated as an exception.” He stressed that while combat was in progress, minesweeping would be regarded as a hostile use of force by the opponent nation. He said that even if such minesweeping was carried out “passively and in a limited manner” he did not believe that the opponent would make a distinction between such operations, and aerial bombardment or participation in land combat.
Edano also referred to a statement made by Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani that “If a situation meets the three new conditions, then it will be possible to use the right of collective self-defense in the territory of other nations, including for attacks on enemy bases.” Edano said, “Just from looking at the provisions of the legislation, that does seems to be correct.” He added that the Prime Minister’s comment that “Generally, the SDF will not enter the territory or territorial waters of another nation with the objective of engaging in the use of force or in armed combat” contradicts this statement of Nakatani’s and is a comment that will mislead public opinion.
4. Risks posed by logistic support
Edano also referred to the fact that in the proposed legislation the provision pertaining to logistic support had been changed, so that from being possible only in “non-combat areas” it would now be permitted in areas apart from “those where combat was currently taking place”. He slammed this provision, saying, “Even if combat is not ‘currently taking place’ it is difficult to predict where it will next occur. Moreover, if SDF troops engage in logistic support, it is precisely such support troops that will be in places which are vulnerable to attack. Sending SDF troops to such places with the limitation in force that they can only use weapons for self-preservation, is simply too irresponsible.”
|
