During the last weekend, I attended a town hall meeting where one of the most prominent Japanese politicians discussed on collective self-defense with his constituents. He is one of leading figures in an opposition party and has a big influence over Japan's foreign and national security policy.
After the politician reported on the latest debate on collective self-defense in the Japanese Parliament, a question and answer session was held.
One attendee asked the politician why the current Prime Minister was hurrying so much in trying to adopt collective self-defense by changing interpretation of the Japanese Constitution.
In reply, the politician indicated his view that the Prime Minister might be trying to adopt collective self-defense because of his conviction that the current Japanese Constitution which had been adopted under the occupation of Allied Forces should be changed so that Japan would be like other countries that could use military forces in overseas area.
He indicated that Japan didn't have to be like other countries and that the constitutional restriction over the use of Japanese military force in overseas area should better be maintained.
Another attendee asked why we could not see wide and large opposition movements like the protests against the Japan‐U.S. Security Treaty in 1960.
The politician advised that the memory of war was so vivid among the people in 1960 and that, without bright hope for their future, current young generations might be susceptible to anti-Chinese or anti-Korean sentiments.
Yet another attendee asked how would be the effects on Japanese budget if Japan adopted collective self-defense.
The politician indicated that, if collective self-defense was adopted in a broad and general way, a range of offensive weapons might need to be procured which would require more defense spending and that, if collective self-defense was adopted in a very limited restricted way, the effects might be little.
He also mentioned that the Prime Minister cited Chinese military expansion and advocated a rivalry against China although it was impossible for Japan to do so under Japan's fiscal situations.
He indicated that disarmament was rather required in the East Asia and that, when he had visited China, he had advised to a former Chinese Foreign Minister to spend more money on social security and medical care rather than security policing or military expenditures.
He advised that, whether affirmative or negative, we should not jump to a conclusion and that we should debate more and examine cases of collective self-defense, which would lead to a right conclusion.
He mentioned that, if the ongoing consultation on collective self-defense between ruling parties would come to an agreement and the cabinet would make a decision to adopt collective self-defense, it would be the gravest crisis of Japanese democracy. It would be unprecedented ignorance of the Parliament.
From the questions and concerns of attendees, I could feel Japanese people's strong feeling that they would never ever want to get involved in a war again.
Thank you.
先週末、ある最も著名な日本の政治家の方が、地元有権者のみなさんと集団的自衛権について議論する、タウンホール・ミーティングに参加しました。彼は、野党の指導者の一人で、日本の外交および安全保障政策に、非常に大きな影響力を持つ方です。
政治家の方が、集団的自衛権に関する国会での議論を報告したあと、質疑応答の時間が設けられました。
ある参加者の方が、現在の首相は、なぜ集団的自衛権の容認を、これほど急ぐのか、質問しました。
政治家の方は、「現在の首相は、占領下に制定された憲法を変えて、日本をいわゆる普通の国にし、海外で武力行使が出来るようにすべきだという信念で行動しているのではないか。」
「日本は、普通の国にはなるべきではない。海外で武力行使することに、ある程度制限がかかっているままの方が良い。」と答えました。
別の参加者の方が、なぜ60年安保闘争のような反対運動が起こらないのか、と質問しました。
政治家の方は、「1960年当時は、戦争の記憶がまだ生々しかった。現在の閉塞状況のはけ口として、若い世代の間に反中・反韓感情があるのではないか。」と答えました。
また別の参加者の方が、仮に集団的自衛権が容認された場合、日本の財政への影響はどうなるか、質問しました。
政治家の方は、「もし集団的自衛権を広く認めれば、攻撃用の兵器も一揃え持つようになり、財政への負担が増えるだろう。一方、きわめて限定的であれば、あまり変わらないかも知れない。」
「現在の首相は、中国が軍拡するから、日本も対抗すべきだと言っているが、そのようなことは、日本の財政状況では無理だ。」
「むしろ軍縮となるようにすべきだ。中国を訪問した際、元外務大臣の唐家璇さんに、中国もこんなに公安や軍にお金使って大丈夫ですか、医療や年金にもっとお金を使うべきではないですか、と伝えた。」と答えました。
また、政治家の方は、「賛成・反対の結論を急ぐのでなく、もっと集団的自衛権について議論すべきだ。事例をひとつひとつ検証して行けば、自ずと結論は出るだろう。」
「もし、このまま与党協議が合意に達して、閣議決定したら、相当の危機だ。国会の歴史で未だかつてなかったような乱暴なことが行なわれることになる。」とおっしゃっていました。
参加者のみなさんの質問や懸念から、日本は二度と戦争に巻き込まれるべきでないという強い気持ちが伝わってきました。
After the politician reported on the latest debate on collective self-defense in the Japanese Parliament, a question and answer session was held.
One attendee asked the politician why the current Prime Minister was hurrying so much in trying to adopt collective self-defense by changing interpretation of the Japanese Constitution.
In reply, the politician indicated his view that the Prime Minister might be trying to adopt collective self-defense because of his conviction that the current Japanese Constitution which had been adopted under the occupation of Allied Forces should be changed so that Japan would be like other countries that could use military forces in overseas area.
He indicated that Japan didn't have to be like other countries and that the constitutional restriction over the use of Japanese military force in overseas area should better be maintained.
Another attendee asked why we could not see wide and large opposition movements like the protests against the Japan‐U.S. Security Treaty in 1960.
The politician advised that the memory of war was so vivid among the people in 1960 and that, without bright hope for their future, current young generations might be susceptible to anti-Chinese or anti-Korean sentiments.
Yet another attendee asked how would be the effects on Japanese budget if Japan adopted collective self-defense.
The politician indicated that, if collective self-defense was adopted in a broad and general way, a range of offensive weapons might need to be procured which would require more defense spending and that, if collective self-defense was adopted in a very limited restricted way, the effects might be little.
He also mentioned that the Prime Minister cited Chinese military expansion and advocated a rivalry against China although it was impossible for Japan to do so under Japan's fiscal situations.
He indicated that disarmament was rather required in the East Asia and that, when he had visited China, he had advised to a former Chinese Foreign Minister to spend more money on social security and medical care rather than security policing or military expenditures.
He advised that, whether affirmative or negative, we should not jump to a conclusion and that we should debate more and examine cases of collective self-defense, which would lead to a right conclusion.
He mentioned that, if the ongoing consultation on collective self-defense between ruling parties would come to an agreement and the cabinet would make a decision to adopt collective self-defense, it would be the gravest crisis of Japanese democracy. It would be unprecedented ignorance of the Parliament.
From the questions and concerns of attendees, I could feel Japanese people's strong feeling that they would never ever want to get involved in a war again.
Thank you.
先週末、ある最も著名な日本の政治家の方が、地元有権者のみなさんと集団的自衛権について議論する、タウンホール・ミーティングに参加しました。彼は、野党の指導者の一人で、日本の外交および安全保障政策に、非常に大きな影響力を持つ方です。
政治家の方が、集団的自衛権に関する国会での議論を報告したあと、質疑応答の時間が設けられました。
ある参加者の方が、現在の首相は、なぜ集団的自衛権の容認を、これほど急ぐのか、質問しました。
政治家の方は、「現在の首相は、占領下に制定された憲法を変えて、日本をいわゆる普通の国にし、海外で武力行使が出来るようにすべきだという信念で行動しているのではないか。」
「日本は、普通の国にはなるべきではない。海外で武力行使することに、ある程度制限がかかっているままの方が良い。」と答えました。
別の参加者の方が、なぜ60年安保闘争のような反対運動が起こらないのか、と質問しました。
政治家の方は、「1960年当時は、戦争の記憶がまだ生々しかった。現在の閉塞状況のはけ口として、若い世代の間に反中・反韓感情があるのではないか。」と答えました。
また別の参加者の方が、仮に集団的自衛権が容認された場合、日本の財政への影響はどうなるか、質問しました。
政治家の方は、「もし集団的自衛権を広く認めれば、攻撃用の兵器も一揃え持つようになり、財政への負担が増えるだろう。一方、きわめて限定的であれば、あまり変わらないかも知れない。」
「現在の首相は、中国が軍拡するから、日本も対抗すべきだと言っているが、そのようなことは、日本の財政状況では無理だ。」
「むしろ軍縮となるようにすべきだ。中国を訪問した際、元外務大臣の唐家璇さんに、中国もこんなに公安や軍にお金使って大丈夫ですか、医療や年金にもっとお金を使うべきではないですか、と伝えた。」と答えました。
また、政治家の方は、「賛成・反対の結論を急ぐのでなく、もっと集団的自衛権について議論すべきだ。事例をひとつひとつ検証して行けば、自ずと結論は出るだろう。」
「もし、このまま与党協議が合意に達して、閣議決定したら、相当の危機だ。国会の歴史で未だかつてなかったような乱暴なことが行なわれることになる。」とおっしゃっていました。
参加者のみなさんの質問や懸念から、日本は二度と戦争に巻き込まれるべきでないという強い気持ちが伝わってきました。