SAVE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY JAPAN 2014 (立憲デモクラシ—の会） Statement of Protest Against the Abe Cabinet’s Reinterpretation of the Constitution （安倍内閣の解釈改憲への抗議声明）July 2, 2014 Save Constitutional Democracy Japan 2014 The July 1 announcement by the Abe Cabinet that the government would move to change its official interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution, thereby enabling Japan to participate in collective self-defense, represents a fundamental repudiation of constitutionalism. The administration’s attempt to achieve what is effectively a constitutional revision through the ad hoc decision of a single cabinet is equally a fundamental attack upon democratic government and the sovereignty of the people. On June 9, Save Constitutional Democracy Japan 2014 raised the following points in opposition to constitutional reinterpretation: De facto constitutional revision through constitutional “reinterpretation” is a repudiation of constitutionalism in modern nation states, in which politics is rooted in the constitution. The examples cited by Prime Minister Abe to explain Japan’s need for the right to collective self-defense are purely hypothetical cases that defy all common sense regarding military matters. Abe also ignores the possibility that new hard-line policies may in fact place Japan at greater risk. The promise to exercise collective self-defense to “the minimum extent necessary” is impossible in practice. What is actually needed in East Asia is a reduction in tensions. In light of these points, we cannot possibly accept this decision by the Abe Cabinet, and hereby voice our strong objections. A. Reckless Government Actions Will Destroy Democratic Government Negotiations on the issue between the ruling parties were insincere and lacked a sense of responsibility for protecting the lives of Japanese citizens. During his press conference to announce the report of the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security, Prime Minister Abe discussed a series of unrealistic scenarios to support his argument that Japan’s ability to exercise collective self-defense was essential in “securing our lives and ensuring that we can live in peace.” At this press conference Abe declared that the JSDF would “never participate in such warfare as…the Iraq War” and or in U.N.-sanctioned collective security measures. In subsequent ruling party discussions, however, Abe has often backtracked on this promise, discussing not only collective self-defense, but also his desire to participate in collective security operations with regard to the mine sweeping of sea lanes in conflict zones and other issues. The manner in which the Abe administration has pushed ahead with this ad hoc constitutional reinterpretation is highly reminiscent of Japan’s disastrous path to the Second World War. At that time, under the pretext of protecting the lives of Japanese citizens, the government began an intractable conflict that developed into an all-out war. Today, the ruling parties’ negotiations surrounding constitutional reinterpretation appear to have revived the potential for Japan to become caught up in an endlessly expanding conflict. Once the JSDF joins a sea mine sweeping exercise or any other operation involving military force, the premise that the JSDF would withdraw if a conflict exceeded “the minimum extent of force necessary” will be proven to be entirely unrealistic. Furthermore, the Abe administration’s intention to gradually expand the scope of acceptable military force was made clear by the recently revealed “Q&A” document compiled by the government. Constitutionalism places “brakes” upon the reckless actions of individual administrations that could affect such important matters as the state of the nation or the basis of rights and safety of its citizens. The Abe administration seeks to destroy this basic principle, and replace it with a system in which any given administration has the power to freely decide upon the scope of military action. If Japan is to shift away from its postwar pursuit of the great principle of a national security guarantee under the Constitution, then it is essential that this change be made only after nationwide public debate and a formal revision to the actual wording of the Constitution. B. “Collective Self-Defense” is Unconstitutional and Will Not Improve Japan’s Security Up until now, the Japanese government’s interpretation of the Constitution recognized that the limited use of military force in order to maintain and protect the peace and security of Japan remained consistent with Article 9 in the following circumstances: 1) When Japan faced an imminent and illegitimate invasion and 2) Lacked any other appropriate measures to counteract this threat and 3) The use of force was limited to the minimum extent necessary. This interpretation allowed Japan to secure the deterrent force necessary to protect itself from attack while also establishing clear brakes upon its exercise of the right to self-defense. Moreover, the explicit statement that Japan would not take aggressive action against other countries contributed to the easing of tensions in East Asia. By contrast, the use of military force by Japan to respond to an attack upon a close ally, even if Japan itself did not face direct attack—in other words, acts of “collective self-defense”—are unconstitutional under the second clause of Article 9. When one considers the potential for numerous, unwarranted military actions to be justified in the name of collective self-defense, one can see that authorizing such force may well embroil Japan in needless international conflicts. Thus, in the medium to long-term perspective, collective self-defense makes no contribution to the national security of Japan. C. Expanding the Right to Self-Defense through a Changed Government Interpretation Will Destroy Constitutionalism The July 1 Cabinet decision replaces the first of the above-mentioned three conditions for Japan’s exercise of self-defense with the condition that “an armed attack against a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan occurs and as a result threatens Japan’s survival and poses a clear danger to overturn people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” and states that military force employed as a measure for self-defense should be permitted under the Constitution. In this regard, it states that “in certain situations, the ‘use of force’ is, under international law, based on the right of collective self-defense.” In this way, the Abe administration is attempting to convince the Japanese public that the logic of the cabinet decision remains consistent with the government’s 1972 interpretation of Article 9, when in fact it leads to the exact opposite conclusion: that Japan may exercise collective self-defense under international law. This is a deceitful reinterpretation of the constitution that serves to invalidate Article 9 without undertaking the legitimate procedures required for its revision. What is more, discarding the clear criterion of a direct attack upon Japan as a precondition for military action invites a number of dangers. First, just as the slogan “Manchuria is Japan’s lifeline” once served to justify Japanese military aggression, the scope of the application of the right to self-defense can be expanded indefinitely. This renders Article 9 almost completely meaningless. Second, once a precedent has been set for an administration to freely reinterpret the Constitution, the continued application of the Constitution becomes exceedingly unstable. This will destroy the foundation of constitutionalism in Japan. Save Constitutional Democracy Japan 2014 opposes the July 1 decision of the Abe Cabinet, which avoids undertaking a formal constitutional revision process by arbitrarily reinterpreting the Constitution to permit the exercise of collective self-defense. We will use every future opportunity, including the deliberation of related legislation at this fall’s extraordinary Diet session, to seek the prompt reinstatement of democratic government rooted in the Constitution. 目良誠二郎（Seijiro Mera）さんより ７月４日に行われた「立憲デモクラシーの会」の記者会見での、発言がそれぞれに鋭いですね。 「集団的自衛権は同盟国を守るために海外派兵する権利以外の何物でもない。公然とうそをついている。安倍氏が首相であることに恐怖を覚えた」（小林節慶応大学名誉教授） 「この六十年余、最大の抑止力は平和憲法だった」（千葉真国際基督教大学教授） 「自衛隊員が海外で殺し殺される方向へと為政者たちが仕向けていく。国民の命をもてあそぶ専制政治だ」（小森陽一東大教授 ＜集団的自衛権 学者らが抗議 「国民の命もてあそぶな」＞ （『東京新聞』2014年7月5日朝刊）
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 11:04:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015