Restriction of Moving Abroad

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs ordered a freelance cameraman to return his passport to the ministry in order to prevent him from traveling in Syria, part of where Islamic State controls. While the ministry was apparently afraid of kidnapping and threatening Japanese government as the terrorist organization did in a previous case, violation of freedom of moving to a foreign country was suspected. This is the case in which state power and individual right opposed, but each side has its own problem.

According to the newspaper reports, Yu-ichi Sugimoto, freelance cameraman living in Niigata city, planed to travel Syria to report the situation of refugee camps. After realizing his plan, MOFA tried to persuade him not to travel there, resulted in no agreement with him. Then, the ministry invoked Section 4 of Article 19 of Passport Law of Japan, which enabled the government to demand the people to return passport when it recognized necessity to stop the foreign travel to protect life, body or property of the signer, and Sugimoto returned his passport to a staff of the ministry on Saturday.

Sugimoto told his frustration to the reporters after MOFA took his passport away. He planned to go to a city in northern Syria, which the Kurdish autonomous organization recaptured from Islamic State, rebel militia of Free Syrian Army or refugee camp in Turkey. “Freedom of moving to foreign country, speech, report were violated,” said Sugimoto.

Sugimoto’s determination to report the situation of victims of the civil war is a precious thing. However, it must be highly risky for him to travel in Syria now. Islamic State targets Japanese people to threaten Japan. Selling journalists to terrorist organization is a business in neighbor countries. Even how his guide would be reliable, he may be betrayed anytime. It is unrealistic for him to achieve his purpose of his reporting in Syria in this situation.

MOFA has to recognize the significance of restricting Sugimoto’s human rights. Article 22 of Japanese Constitution says “Freedom of all persons to move to a foreign country and to divest of their nationality should be inviolate.” Although Article 4 of MOFA Settlement Law determines one of the affairs of the ministry as “to protect life and body or other security measures for Japanese abroad,” the law would not be superior to the Constitution.

If the government wanted to protect life and body of the Japanese abroad, it has to refrain from unnecessarily intimidating terrorist organization by making speech that overtly emphasize its standpoint of a member of coalition countries. MOFA seems to be reluctant to abandon its role to protect Japanese citizens abroad, because it is an interest of the organization. With its responsibility of doing that, it can request more budget and human resources. Another option, accepting certification of no necessity of governmental protection for example, may worth consider.