By Chikara Shima and Yasumasa Takada / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writers The wishes of New Komeito, which has been reluctant to endorse reinterpretation of the Constitution, were taken into consideration when composing the final draft of a Cabinet decision on exercising the right of collective self-defense, but the government and the Liberal Democratic Party have been able to maintain the range they sought for exercising the right, informed sources said.
However, the agreement left important issues to be addressed later by the Diet, including how to handle collective security.
“A strictly defensive posture will be maintained and [Japan] will not become a major military power that could threaten other nations.”
“If a dispute takes place, the maximum possible diplomatic efforts will be made to resolve it peacefully.”
The final draft released Friday differed from the outline presented Tuesday, in that it incorporated the above two sentences at Komeito’s request.
Such revisions were made in response to criticism from those opposed to “becoming a war-ready nation,” and are intended to show that Japan will continue to be a pacifist country that values peaceful solutions above all else.
Additions describing how the changing security environment has necessitated collective self-defense as a defensive measure, and on the importance of increasing deterrence by strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance, increased the overall length of the text by 20 percent, a government source said.
The government and the LDP approached the negotiations with Komeito with an attitude that “any wishes for how things are expressed would be accommodated,” the sources said.
However, they insisted that not all of the eight scenarios related to collective self-defense—out of the 15 proposed by a ruling-party panel—be eliminated from the Cabinet decision.
In the end, it was agreed that three new conditions for mobilizing the right to self-defense could only be invoked in situations when Japan’s continued existence is threatened and there is a clear danger that the people’s lives and rights will be fundamentally undermined.
Moreover, it was decided that when a situation arises, the government would determine whether to exercise the right of self-defense based on these conditions.
Minesweeping operations in sea lanes was one point of contention on which agreement was not reached.
It was proposed that participation would be allowed if the effect on Japan was to be inordinately large, but not if the effect was expected to be more minor.
The LDP saw such situations as appropriate to exercising the right of collective self-defense, according to a high-ranking party member. But according to Komeito Vice President Kazuo Kitagawa, “Just having mines laid in a sea lane isn’t enough to merit [invoking the right of collective self-defense].
Regarding the issue of collective security, there was a battle over a single word at a meeting of the ruling parties.
Komeito deputy chief Kazuo Kitagawa criticized a provision in the final draft that said the nation’s right of collective self-defense “could also be” a reason for the use of force mentioned earlier in the draft.
“Does ‘also’ mean that collective security is included?” Kitagawa wanted to know. Komeito is cautious about collective security.
The expression “could also be” was based on the LDP’s position. Even if Japan independently begins minesweeping in sea-lanes by exercising its right of collective self-defense, that same activity would become an act of collective security in the eyes of the international community if the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution urging member nations to sweep mines in sea-lanes and take other measures. Collective security refers to the use of force approved under the U.N. framework.
LDP members put the meaning of collective security in “also” because they worry that Japan would have to stop all its activities after the adoption of such a U.N. resolution if the use of force under collective security was categorically excluded from the draft.
However, Komeito leaders opposed this, arguing it would be impossible to consolidate opinion within their party if collective security was included in the discussion.
Accepting the request from Komeito, LDP agreed to change the expression to “could be” in the draft to be endorsed by the Cabinet.
LDP Vice President Masahiko Komura, who chairs the meetings between the two parties, said collective security has not been an official agenda item of their discussions. If Komeito wants the wording to be changed, “also” should be taken out, Komura said.
In reality, however, the government and the LDP have informally established a policy that the SDF could continue its activities even after a U.N. resolution was adopted, if those activities meet the new three conditions to allow the exercise of Japan’s self-defense right and are not acts of combat to harm an enemy.
The government’s written answer to the Diet, which was endorsed by the Cabinet on Friday, also stipulates that the SDF can continue its activities even if a U.N. resolution is adopted when the individual self-defense right is exercised.
Japan in Depth / LDP compromised, preserved range of self-defense right - The Japan News
However, the agreement left important issues to be addressed later by the Diet, including how to handle collective security.
“A strictly defensive posture will be maintained and [Japan] will not become a major military power that could threaten other nations.”
“If a dispute takes place, the maximum possible diplomatic efforts will be made to resolve it peacefully.”
The final draft released Friday differed from the outline presented Tuesday, in that it incorporated the above two sentences at Komeito’s request.
Such revisions were made in response to criticism from those opposed to “becoming a war-ready nation,” and are intended to show that Japan will continue to be a pacifist country that values peaceful solutions above all else.
Additions describing how the changing security environment has necessitated collective self-defense as a defensive measure, and on the importance of increasing deterrence by strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance, increased the overall length of the text by 20 percent, a government source said.
The government and the LDP approached the negotiations with Komeito with an attitude that “any wishes for how things are expressed would be accommodated,” the sources said.
However, they insisted that not all of the eight scenarios related to collective self-defense—out of the 15 proposed by a ruling-party panel—be eliminated from the Cabinet decision.
In the end, it was agreed that three new conditions for mobilizing the right to self-defense could only be invoked in situations when Japan’s continued existence is threatened and there is a clear danger that the people’s lives and rights will be fundamentally undermined.
Moreover, it was decided that when a situation arises, the government would determine whether to exercise the right of self-defense based on these conditions.
Minesweeping operations in sea lanes was one point of contention on which agreement was not reached.
It was proposed that participation would be allowed if the effect on Japan was to be inordinately large, but not if the effect was expected to be more minor.
The LDP saw such situations as appropriate to exercising the right of collective self-defense, according to a high-ranking party member. But according to Komeito Vice President Kazuo Kitagawa, “Just having mines laid in a sea lane isn’t enough to merit [invoking the right of collective self-defense].
Regarding the issue of collective security, there was a battle over a single word at a meeting of the ruling parties.
Komeito deputy chief Kazuo Kitagawa criticized a provision in the final draft that said the nation’s right of collective self-defense “could also be” a reason for the use of force mentioned earlier in the draft.
“Does ‘also’ mean that collective security is included?” Kitagawa wanted to know. Komeito is cautious about collective security.
The expression “could also be” was based on the LDP’s position. Even if Japan independently begins minesweeping in sea-lanes by exercising its right of collective self-defense, that same activity would become an act of collective security in the eyes of the international community if the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution urging member nations to sweep mines in sea-lanes and take other measures. Collective security refers to the use of force approved under the U.N. framework.
LDP members put the meaning of collective security in “also” because they worry that Japan would have to stop all its activities after the adoption of such a U.N. resolution if the use of force under collective security was categorically excluded from the draft.
However, Komeito leaders opposed this, arguing it would be impossible to consolidate opinion within their party if collective security was included in the discussion.
Accepting the request from Komeito, LDP agreed to change the expression to “could be” in the draft to be endorsed by the Cabinet.
LDP Vice President Masahiko Komura, who chairs the meetings between the two parties, said collective security has not been an official agenda item of their discussions. If Komeito wants the wording to be changed, “also” should be taken out, Komura said.
In reality, however, the government and the LDP have informally established a policy that the SDF could continue its activities even after a U.N. resolution was adopted, if those activities meet the new three conditions to allow the exercise of Japan’s self-defense right and are not acts of combat to harm an enemy.
The government’s written answer to the Diet, which was endorsed by the Cabinet on Friday, also stipulates that the SDF can continue its activities even if a U.N. resolution is adopted when the individual self-defense right is exercised.
Japan in Depth / LDP compromised, preserved range of self-defense right - The Japan News
