Preparing for the worst

有事3法案成立の意義

The package was supported by the governing coalition comprising the Liberal-Democratic Party, New Komeito and the New Conservative Party, and by two opposition groups, the Democratic Party of Japan and the Liberal Party. As expected, it was opposed by the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party.

Now Japan has wartime legislation spelling out basic responses not only to an actual attack but to an "anticipated" attack. The Self-Defense Forces Law has been amended to facilitate SDF deployment during such contingencies. The law governing the Security Council of Japan has been revised to create a crisis-response committee.

The near unanimous vote is a victory for the LDP, which has been trying hard to beef up the national security system. "It is of great significance that the legislation has been enacted with broad support from the governing and opposition parties," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said in a statement.

This is a time for reflection. We must remind ourselves of the constitutional principles that guide the nation's security policy. Article 9, which remains the key subject of constitutional controversy, says in part: "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."

SDF-related legislation has gradually evolved since the end of the Cold War. A law enacted in 1992, following the Persian Gulf War, opened the way for SDF participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations. In 1999, measures were put in place to provide logistic support for U.S. forces during a military crisis around Japan. The latest package fills a big hole in the nation's post-World War II security legislation.

In theory at least, military emergency legislation should have been prepared a long time ago. It is anomalous for a nation such as Japan to have no legislative framework for dealing with a foreign attack while maintaining one of the world's most powerful defense forces. Japanese men in uniform began studying "war games" in the late 1970s — assuming that a conflict could develop on the Korean Peninsula. With the Cold War raging, however, the very idea of contingency planning evaporated in the heat of the ideological confrontation between the LDP and the Japan Socialist Party.

Recent events in the regional and global security environment revived the debate on wartime legislation. Among them were the test-firing of missiles by North Korea, intrusions of North Korean spy ships into Japanese territorial waters and the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. The post-Cold War collapse of the bipolar regime of the LDP and JSP contributed favorably to the debate.

Thus the contingency legislation is largely the product of circumstances rather than the result of Japan's initiative. It is flawed in many ways, although any such legislation cannot be perfect. One serious flaw is the lack of measures to protect the people's basic rights as well as their lives and assets.

Mr. Koizumi is right to say that "prevention is better than cure." But leaving the people out in the cold while stressing the need for military preparedness would be irresponsible. The government, however, appears to be moving in the right direction. The governing coalition and the DPJ have agreed to work out a system of protective measures, including those related to resident evacuation, rescue of victims and maintenance of law and order.

Finally, the new legislation needs to be seen in the context of Japan's relations with its Asian neighbors, which apparently look at the nation's security policy with considerable suspicion. To avoid causing unnecessary apprehensions, this nation must treat the legislation with utmost caution. Ideally, Japan should strive to create the kind of situation that obviates the very need to invoke these emergency laws.

The Japan Times Weekly
June 21, 2003
(C) All rights reserved

      与党自民党、公明党、保守党と野党民主党、自由党が賛成、共産党、社民党は反対した。

      3法案（武力攻撃事態法案、自衛隊法改正案、安保会議設置法改正案）に対する圧倒的多数の賛成は、安全保障体制強化を求めてきた自民党の勝利である。

      この成立は、国際紛争を解決する手段としての戦争の放棄を明記している日本国憲法について考えるよい機会である。

      自衛隊関連法は冷戦の終結以来変化してきた。湾岸戦争後の1992年に制定された法律は、自衛隊の国連平和維持軍への参加を可能にし、1999制定の法律は日本周辺の有事の際に米軍に対する後方支援を可能にした。有事法制は、戦後の安全保障体制の大きな穴を埋める。

      冷戦時代には、有事法制は自民党と社会党の激しい思想的対立のなかで実現しなかった。しかし近年、北朝鮮によるテポドン・ミサイルの発射、北朝鮮工作船の日本領海侵犯、9・11同時多発テロなどで情勢が大きく変化し、自民・社会の2大政党制の崩壊もあって有事法制に関する議論が高まった。

      有事法制の大きな問題のひとつは、国民の基本的権利、生活、資産を守る措置に欠けていることである。しかし、与党3党と民主党は、有事の際の住民の避難、被害者の救出、法と秩序の維持などについての体制作りをすることで合意している。

      有事法制実施に当たっては、日本の安全保障政策について相当の不信感を抱いているアジア諸国の立場を十分に考慮して、取り扱いはあくまでも慎重にすべきである。理想的には、有事法制発動を不必要とするような情勢をつくるべきである。