"Let's have a real debate in the Diet and ask the people to make a decision." These words were spoken by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to LDP lawmakers on June 22 when the ordinary session of the Diet was extended by 95 days. They are an expression of his, and the Party's, strong resolve to see the security legislation passed. The government will continue to provide careful and thorough explanations of the significance of the new legal framework for peace and security and seek the understanding of the opposition parties, and the LDP will provide full backing for these efforts.
Masahisa Sato, the Director of the National Defense Division, presents his view about the main points of the debate in the Diet.
Limited exercise of right of the collective self-defense is not unconstitutional
Masahisa Sato, the Director of the National Defense Division:
There is criticism that allowing limited exercise of the right of collective self-defense is "unconstitutional." In the Sunagawa judgment, the Supreme Court found, "The exercise of force prohibited in Article 9 of the Constitution does not include self-defense measures." In 1972, after the Sunagawa judgment, the government took the position that "self-defense measures will be kept to the required minimum."
he Sunagawa judgment does not distinguish between collective and individual self-defense measures, but given the international environment at the time, the government applied it to the right of individual self-defense. Since then, international circumstances and weapons have significantly evolved, and it is impossible to defend Japan without recognizing, even on a limited basis, the right of collective self-defense.
Normally, the right of collective self-defense is the right of closely related two countries to help each other if they are attacked ("we help you if you are attacked" and "you help us if we are attacked"), but limited recognition of the right of collective self-defense restricts this to cases in which "the lives and property of the Japanese people are threatened if we fail to act." The purpose is entirely self-defense, not defending someone else, and it does not, therefore, violate the Constitution.
Minesweeping in the Strait of Hormuz would be allowable
The government has expressed the view that minesweeping in the Strait of Hormuz would be possible when three new conditions on "exercise of force" in self-defense are applied, but the debate has not moved very far on this question.
As a resource-poor country, Japan depends on the Persian Gulf for 80% of its crude oil and 20% of its natural gas, and each year 3,600-4,000 large vessels pass through the Strait of Hormuz to satisfy Japan's needs. Japan is more dependent on these resources than any other country, and were the Strait of Hormuz to be closed because underwater mines had been laid, the inevitable damage to the Japanese economy would be immense.
If we were to ignore the mines because "we have six months of reserves," the result would be more than just crashing share prices. Japan would be seriously damaged, every bit as much as if it were to come under armed attack. For example, if fighting were to be ongoing in the interior but not reach the Strait of Hormuz, it would be technically feasible for Japan to work with other countries and remove the underwater mines before the hostilities had fully ended, and this would be deemed an exercise of the right of collective self-defense under international law.
"We didn't expect that" can never be an excuse in security. Whether we actually do it or not, we need to have a legal framework in place that allows Japan, the country most influenced by them, to remove the underwater mines. This protects the lives and property of our people, and also improves our international credibility.
It is nonsensical to argue about the risk of Self-Defense Forces
There is an argument often made that "there will be casualties if we send our Self-Defense Forces overseas and if they get drawn into a conflict." The fact of the matter is, however, that the duties of the Self-Defense Forces always involve risk. That's true for police officers and firefighters as well. You cannot argue against taking action just because there is risk.
The passage of the security legislation will strengthen the mutual assistance between Japan and the United States, which will improve deterrence, but the discussion of risk itself will depend on what the Self-Defense Forces do and where they do it. I believe it is nonsensical to be arguing about whether the proposed legislation increases or decreases risk at all times and in all places.
More important is the idea that we as politicians review the portions of our law that are unrealistic and work to minimize the risks to which the Self-Defense Forces are exposed.
For example, the current legislation changes the idea of "logistical support." Traditionally, we have drawn a distinction between "combat areas" and "non-combat areas," and the Self-Defense Forces have only provided logistical support in non-combat areas. This, however, is a theory that was advanced to avoid the Article 9 prohibition against "integration with the forces," and it is not realistic. For example, I led an advance team in Samawah, Iraq where we saw Dutch troops killed by hand grenades and there was a threat of car bombs by terrorists.
The new legislation distinguishes between "areas where acts of war are currently taking place (actual combat areas)" and everywhere else. This distinction is clear and realistic, and it reduces the risks to which Self-Defense Forces are exposed.
One criticism that is often heard is that "if the scope of logistical support is expanded to all areas where there is no actual fighting, then the Self-Defense Forces will be sent to dangerous areas and exposed to more risk." However, the logistical support provided by the Self-Defense Forces is limited to "designated areas" that are expected to be safe, so it is not the case that they can go anywhere as long as there is no actual fighting.
No possibility for introducing conscription
During the leaders' debate on June 17, Katsuya Okada, President of the DPJ noted that "there is a view that conscription will be imposed in the future," but both the government and the LDP have clearly rejected conscription as a form of "involuntary servitude" prohibited by Article 18 of the Constitution.
It seems to me that the opposition is merely trying to stir up fear. There is also a shoddy, imprudent argument: "Even if the exercise of the right of collective self-defense is limited, we will see people quitting the Self-Defense Forces in droves and will be unable to recruit new people. Since we are already seeing a decline in our birthrate, conscription will be inevitable."
There might have been some logic to that in extreme circumstances back in the day when fighting a war meant digging holes and firing guns, but you have to ask yourself whether you really think amateurs can handle the advanced weapons that are used in modern warfare today. It takes about ten years before a new recruit to the Self-Defense Forces becomes fully competent. Conscription is also unrealistic from a fiscal standpoint; wages and food for full-time forces account for 45% of the defense budget.
The opposition only sees the trees and never see the forest
The most important job that we have as politicians is to not start wars. We have been successful at this in the 70 years since the end of the war, thanks to the diplomatic efforts required by our pacifist policy, the deterrent force of the Japan-U.S alliance, and the devoted efforts of the Self-Defense Forces. The main purpose of the new legal framework for peace and security is to increase deterrence and reduce the risks that our people face. The mutual protection between Japan and the United States must be seamless, and must cover all eventualities, both peacetime and emergency, and it is important that other countries understand that "if they hit Japan, they will get hit back" and "doing so will be futile."
I think most members of the opposition share the perception that the security environment is becoming more difficult, but our debates in the Diet go on and on about the trees and never see the forest. The Party is committed to early passage of the legislation and will use every opportunity, including the Diet debate, to argue for its necessity.
