On April 28 the House of Representatives, the lower house of Japan's Diet,
passed bills relating to the new Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense
Cooperation, which received support from three parties -- the Liberal
Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the New Komeito -- and others.
Since these three parties have a combined majority in the House of
Councillors, the bills are expected to clear the upper house and be enacted
in late May.
In April 1996 the governments of Japan and the United States issued a Japan-U.S. Joint Declaration on Security, reconfirming the
significance of the bilateral Security Treaty in the post-cold-war era. This
joint declaration stated that the Japan-U.S. security arrangements "remains
the cornerstone for a stable and prosperous environment for the Asia-Pacific region." At the same time, the two governments announced that they would review the Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation, which were
formulated in 1978 during the cold war, and issue a new set of guidelines.
The former guidelines had the tone of a tactical plan to counter the
Soviet military of the time. Since then, however, the cold war has come to
an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there was a need to
formulate new guidelines revising the roles of Japan and the United States.
Now that the enactment of the bills based on the new guidelines has become certain, it can be said that the course of reconfirming the Japan-U.S. security arrangements has entered the final touch-up phase.
Japan's exclusively defense-oriented policy in the cold-war period put the
emphasis on guarding Japan's national territory and countering the potential
threat posed by the former Soviet army. Under the new guidelines, Japan will
not only concentrate on the defense of its own territory but also provide
rear-area support for U.S forces engaged in a war, dispute, or contingency
in areas surrounding Japan.
The related bills comprise three elements: (1) a bill to ensure safety in situations in areas surrounding Japan that defines the kind of rear-area support to be offered to U.S. forces; (2) a bill to revise the
Self-Defense Forces Law so that, in rescuing Japanese nationals abroad, it
would be possible to use SDF transport ships and destroyers in addition to
transport planes, which are permitted now; and (3) a bill to revise the
Japan-U.S. Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement, which enables the
mutual lending of materials in an emergency.
Of these bills, the one that raised the most debate between the ruling and opposition parties was the bill to ensure safety in situations in areas surrounding Japan. The bill defines "situations in areas surrounding Japan" as developments "that will have an important influence on Japan's peace and security." It stipulates that if such a situation were to occur, the SDF would extend rear-area support to U.S. forces, such as the transport and supply of materials and surveillance and rescue operations for, for example, U.S. pilots who have been shot down.
Also, the bill stipulates that the government may request the cooperation of local governments and private companies in more than 10
areas, including the use of ports, airports, and medical facilities, transportation, and water supply.
Regarding the definition of "situations in areas surrounding Japan," the LDP's coalition partner Liberal Party argued that the phrase "situations that could result in an armed attack on Japan if no
countermeasures were taken" should be added, and finally this phrase was
accepted. The Liberal Party welcomed this "quasi-contingency" clause, saying that "the definition has become clearer." However, it was criticized by the opposition parties, which stated that the phrase could lead to an expansion of the right of self-defense and moves toward the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Another major issue concerned the extent to which the Diet would be involved in the government's basic plan of rear-area support for U.S. forces. The government proposed that it would submit an after-the-fact report to the Diet. From the perspective of ensuring civilian control of the SDF, however, the opposition parties argued that prior approval of the Diet be required. The government countered that even if approval was mandated, it could come afterward.
Finally the LDP, Liberal Party, and New Komeito reached a compromise, agreeing that prior approval would be necessary in principle for rear-area support and rear-area surveillance and rescue operations but that such approval could come ex post facto in the event of an emergency.
Regarding the guideline-related bills, the Asahi Shimbun, in an editorial on April 28, called for more political discussion of the security alliance with the United States. "The Japan-U.S. security alliance has undergone a change nearly as drastic as revision of the Security Treaty
itself. . . . But there has been no broad discussion of the alliance." With
regard to the amendments agreed on by the LDP, Liberal Party, and New
Komeito, the Asahi commented, "The revised legislation departs from the
government-drafted bills in that they impose Diet approval before Self-Defense Forces are involved in military cooperation with U.S. forces.
As we have noted repeatedly, however, the amendments do not correct the
fundamental flaws in the government's draft."
Also in an editorial on April 28, the Mainichi Shimbun
commented: "The enactment of these three bills will . . . mark a historic
turning point in Japan's national security and defense strategy. . . . As
the Japanese government has stressed, the stability of the Asia-Pacific
region cannot be taken for granted. . . . Given the existence of potential
threats, it is imperative for Japan to develop a legal framework for
responding to regional crises. The three Diet bills to implement the new
Japan-U.S. defense guidelines should help to deter the outbreak of conflicts
and wars in the Asia-Pacific region." However, the Mainichi went on, "a
number of sticking points have to be cleared up in order to promote the goal
of greater regional stability. Above all, the Japanese government must
reassure the Japanese people that extending assistance to the U.S. military
will not violate the Constitution and curtail the civil rights of Japanese
citizens." As an example, the Mainichi pointed to the provision about
quasi-contingencies and objected that it could rock the principle of
exclusively defense-oriented policy.
Meanwhile, in an editorial on April 27, the Yomiuri Shimbun stated: "It has been a year since the government submitted the bills to the Diet. Now that they are on the threshold of being passed, we can say the bills have made significant progress." The Nihon Keizai Shimbun (editorial, April 27) remarked: "The bills are necessary to make the Japan-U.S. security arrangements function in practice. We appreciate the fact that the ruling and opposition parties engaged in repeated discussions and managed to get the bills through the lower house."
The Sankei Shimbun (editorial, April 27) also welcomed the bills but added a request: "In general we support the revised bills. The government and ruling parties probably feel relieved that they have been able to fulfill their pledge to the United States. However, the guideline bills are
really just a prelude to legislation on emergency situations, which they must tackle next. Legislation on emergency situations is essential for Japan's security."
(Copyright 1999 Foreign Press Center / Japan)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
