Obscure Selection of Sports

Tokyo Olympic Organizing Committee announced five sports would be recommended to add to the list of the event in 2020. They were baseball/softball, karate, skateboarding, sports climbing and surfing, all of which are currently popular in young people in Japan. Having been annoyed with scandals over plagiarism of official logo or resignation of Minister in charge of sports, the committee is eager to rebuild nationalistic enthusiasm on the international sports event.

President of International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, has been promoting Olympic reform called Agenda 2020, which included initiative of host country to propose adding new sports in Olympic games. IOC had been concerned on a reality that only a few cities in the world was offering candidacy for hosting Olympic, mainly because of financial reason. There also was a notion that traditional sports games did not attract young people.

TOOC received requests from twenty-six sports organizations to add their sports on the list and selected the eight out of them. After consideration of international popularity or population of players, bowling, squash and martial arts were dropped. Karate or sports climbing survived the selection, even though popularity in the world or basis of scoring was not necessarily established.

Having twenty million players in the world, squash was not chosen for Olympic game. “Why a game with high evaluation of IOC was not chosen?” told the president of Japan Squash Association. While TOOC stressed transparency of selection process, leaders of sports organizations complained. While one of the boarding members leaked information that baseball/softball was hopeful, reasons of picking or dropping each sports were not announced. It is doubted that there was deals between TOOC and IOC in the selection.

Skepticism to the members of TOOC is basic disturbance in preparation for the Olympic. The president of TOOC is former Prime Minister and political mentor of Shinzo Abe, Yoshiro Mori. While he established friendship with Russian President, Vladimir Putin because of judo experience, or has been known as a player of rugby football, Mori is not an advanced player in national level in both sports. Secretary General, Toshiro Muro, is former Vice-minister of Ministry of Finance, who had mostly been nothing to do with sports community. Wikipedia introduces his hobby as painting. Member in charge of the selection is Fujio Mitarai, former President of Japan Business Federation, or Keidanren.

It is fair to say that TOOC is an organization led by former leaders from politics, bureaucracy and business sector, topping the social pyramid of Japan. Having experienced scandals stems from collusive relationship among those three, including Lockheed Scandal or Recruit Scandal, Japanese people are fundamentally careful in trusting the leaders.

Fall of Constitution Watcher

Cabinet Legislative Bureau has long been working as an organization in executive branch for watching policies that were made by Ministers who were also have status as lawmakers under parliamentary cabinet system of Japan. According to a report of Mainichi Shimbun on Monday, the bureau changed constitutional interpretation over collective self-defense, which had been kept for over four decades, in one day. In the background was pressure from Shinzo Abe administration. It is a significant disturbance on legal stability by politics.

Dubbed as “watcher for Constitution,” CLB worked for judging constitutionality of policies and making opinion to Cabinet. The report revealed that CLB received draft of cabinet decision for new interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution from National Security Bureau on June 30^th last year. A CLB counselor in charge of constitutional legislation replied to NSB that CLB did not have any opinion on that next day, the same day which Abe Cabinet decided that exercising collective self-defense was constitutional.

CLB Director General, Yusuke Yokobatake, testified in a committee in the House of Councillors this June that constitutionality of exercising collective self-defense was discussed. The report proved that CLB discussed major change over interpretation of Article 9 was made one day. It is highly doubtful that long-lived interpretation that exercising collective defense is unconstitutional, because it exceeds minimum use of force allowed by Article 9, was overwritten in such a short period of time.

In addition, CLB left no document about the process of discussion. When CLB made judge for a policy, counselors would make a document about discussion with bureaucrats in ministries. Public Records Management Act mandates executive organizations to leave documents for reviewing process for decision-making or achievement of policy. Some experts questioned the handling of this issue in CLB.

One thing obvious was that Prime Minister Abe had been enthusiastic for reinterpreting Article 9. Targeting to CLB from the beginning of second term of his administration, Abe replaced CLB Director General to a person who had been close to his idea. Although strength of CLB had been based on independence from politics in constitutional interpretation, bureaucrats in the organization including Yokobatake were daunted by political intervention by Abe.

It is necessary for Japanese people to review relevancy of voluntary check on constitutionality of policies made mainly by an organization under Cabinet. As Abe boasted, it is judicial branch that mainly interprets the Constitution of Japan. Cabinet decision for exercising collective self-defense must be judged by the Supreme Court anyway. Having said that, final decision has to be made by the sovereign people.

Disappointing Outcome of Great Powers Summit

Japanese policy makers must have disappointed with the outcome of summit meeting between United States and China in Washington D.C. on Friday. While two leaders spend much time to address problems in cyber security, there was mostly no progress over territorial dispute in South or East China Sea. It should be questioned whether Japanese security policy, excessively dependent on U.S., has been correct.

U.S. media, actually more excited with first visit of Pope Francis or abrupt resignation of House Speaker John Boehner at the time, focused on cyber security as the most important result of U.S.-China summit between President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. New York Times reported that two leaders pledged “that their governments would refrain from computer-enabled theft of intellectual property for commercial gain.” The paper introduced the agreement as “first concrete steps” of them.

It is not a concrete step, in fact. Even how top leaders share a notion on harmfulness of cyber attacks, governments cannot control every cyber activity done by private actors. “Well, it is a matter of both nations, not governments,” China can say. Xi generalized the issue, saying “China and United States are two major cyber countries and we should strengthen dialogue and cooperation.” It is obvious that Chinese government will not take effective measures against cyber attacks. To be sure, U.S. has been lazy in deterring Chinese advance with passive attitude on arms buildup or inappropriate value of Renminbi in the first decade of this century.

On territorial issue in South China Sea, Obama tried to show himself as taking firm stance against unilateral change of status quo. “I conveyed to President Xi our significant concerns over land reclamation, construction and the militarization of disputed areas, which makes it harder for countries in the region to resolve disagreements peacefully,” told Obama in the joint press conference with Xi.

But, Xi was not interested in what Obama meant. “Islands in the South China Sea from ancient times are China’s territory. We have the right to uphold our own territorial sovereignty and lawful and legitimate maritime rights and interests,” said Xi. The U.S. leader needs to realize that China is committing not only cyber theft, but territorial theft. If U.S. leaves Xi’s reasoning alone, he may start saying that the western half of Pacific Ocean is China’s territory from ancient times.

U.S.-China relationship directly or indirectly affects Japan. As long as U.S. interest in South and East China Sea is limited to some principles like freedom of navigation, the Japanese have to take a close look at how serious U.S. is about Japanese interest in East China Sea.

Olympic Erodes Administration

After a series of scandals that caused broad skepticisms over handling of preparation for Tokyo Olympic 2020, Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Hakubun Shimomura, offered his resignation to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday. Abe accepted it and decided to replace Shimomura in the shuffle of Cabinet members early October. Abe will lose one of his close colleagues in his Cabinet, marking visible decline of his administration.

In his press conference on Friday, Shimomura reported that he told Abe to be stepping down as a Minister, taking responsibility of swollen spending for construction of new stadium in Tokyo. Although Abe said that the problem would not worth stepping down, he hoped Shimomura to continue his job until already planned shuffle of the Cabinet.

At the competition for New National Stadium for Tokyo Olympic was ¥130 billion in 2012. But, with introduction of brand-new architecture designed by Zaha Hadid or inflation in materials for construction, estimated cost got accumulated as high as ¥252 billion. Receiving booing from the public, frustrated with centralized development in capital area in Japan, the government discounted the cost to ¥155 with Abe’s initiative. A third party committee for investigation reported that Shimomura was responsible for the confusing process of determining cost for the stadium.

Abe and Shimomura have been close colleagues in a fraction in Liberal Democratic Party, called Seiwa Policy Study Group, established by former Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda. To raise Jun-ichiro Koizumi for the president of LDP, Abe and Shimomura worked as leaders of the campaign office, asking LDP lawmakers and related organizations support for Koizumi. From the beginning of Abe administration, Shimomura has been supporting Abe as Secretary or Minister. Abe must have hesitated in approving Shimomura’s offer to stepping down.

But, Shimomura had too many scandals to remain in the Cabinet. Earlier this year, illegal donation from some educational organizations to Shimomura was reported. Although Shimomura denied its illegality, the opposite parties targeted him as unworthy for Minister on Education. He also made controversial speech or policy, such as supporting a decision of local government to remove a comic book critical against atomic tragedy in Hiroshima from libraries or considering abolition of liberal art division in national colleges.

It may be fair to say that Abe wanted to remove uncertainty from his Cabinet. But, firing his close supporter apparently indicated decline of political power of Abe. People are watching who can compensate the loss of Shimomura in Abe Cabinet.

Replacing Abenomics

This guy seems to be convinced that he should rather speak a baseless story, disguising people with personal determination, than presenting accurate perspective with honesty. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced in a press conference on Thursday that he would create additional economic growth to the extent Japanese gross domestic products reaches ¥600 trillion. “Abenomics is stepping into the second stage,” declared Abe without successful conclusion of the first stage. After unilateral passage of new security legislation, he believes that the public will wear any color he likes.

Abe was trying to shift policy focus from national security to economics which his administration firstly tackled. One action he made was replacing “three arrows” for economic growth. While he raised positive monetary policy, bold fiscal policy and growth strategy with structural reform as initial three arrows, Abe referred to strong economy, support to raising kids and social security as new three arrows. In short, he was focusing on welfare policies to achieve a goal of his economic policy.

To reach that goal, he stressed importance of demographic policy. Abe proposed increasing birthrate from current 1.42 to 1.8 and maintenance of a hundred millions of Japanese population in fifty years later. To achieve that goal, he promised various policy measures including zero job loss with family nursery, society of life-long activeness, zero waiter for preschool entrance, free education for infancy or more houses with three generations. Without any actual plan or schedule for achieving them, Abe appealed his firm determination to the public.

His self-confidence stemmed from an obscure achievement of his economic policy. “We arrived at a situation in which we can say that we have gotten rid of deflation,” told Abe in his administration. However, growth of Japanese GDP has been driven not with Abenomics but international elements, such as hedging from confusion in Europe or unpredictable move of Chinese economy. Consumption is still low after raising sales tax last year. Nevertheless, Abe emphasized that he would raise the tax again two years later “as far as unusual event like Lehman Shock is not happening.”

Those biased attitude in policy is a product of failure in his first term. Abe stepped down as Prime Minister with policy deadlock, which had been ambiguous. He sought close relationship with China, while reinforcing Japan-U.S. alliance. He took on economic growth policy, while encouraging environmental protection. In this second term, he does not hesitate completely dropping one of two options. But, politics cannot be dealt with such a simple dichotomy. Unfortunately, the Japanese people have a leader who does not understand that complexity.

Looking at Different Direction

Japanese newspapers reported an agreement between Foreign Ministers of Japan and Russia to resume negotiation for peace treaty as early as next month. Considering the situation in which Russia is isolated from international community over intimidating policy against Ukraine, it is unlikely for Japan to have any progress in bilateral relation with Russia. Recognizing it or not, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe still believes in a story that he will be able to regain popularity, if he is successful in inviting Russian President Vladimir Putin within this year.

Japanese Foreign Minister, Fumio Kishida, and Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, agreed on holding vice-minister level meeting in Moscow on October 8^th to resume negotiation for peace treaty. They reconfirmed to accumulate diplomatic communication for Putin’s visit to Japan or top level meeting in opportunities of international conference.

However, they seemed to have different understanding on what “negotiation for peace treaty” meant. In the joint press conference after the meeting, Kishida insisted on that “negotiation” included Northern Territory. “I raised Northern Territory issue to tell our viewpoints on it,” told Kishida, “and we could share a notion that we would need to continue dialogue to make a solution acceptable for each other.” He also expressed frustration on unilateral speeches and actions of Russia, including assertion of ownership or visit by high-level governmental officers on Northern Territory.

Lavrov, showing sober face, clearly dropped Northern Territory issue from the agenda of peace treaty negotiation, saying “Northern Territory is not an object of our talk.” “We can only make a progress when Japan accepts historical reality after World War II including the Charter of United Nations,” told Lavrov. For Russia, post-war historical reality is that Northern Territory is territory of Russia.

To invitation for Putin’s visit to Japan, Lavrov set a condition. “Schedule should be determined by host country. If there is an actual proposal, we will consider it,” said Lavrov. Russia has been carefully watching current Japan’s efforts to reinforce alliance with United States. It is likely that Moscow will answer to the invitation, seeing how Japan-U.S. relation looks like.

But, U.S. attitude on Japan-Russia negotiation is also sober. “We don’t believe that it’s time for business as usual with Russia given their behavior in eastern Ukraine,” told Deputy Spokesperson with Department of State. For Japan, post-war reality has been that Northern Territory issue was supported by U.S. in a context of Cold War. Now, it seems to be different.

Frozen Abductees Negotiation

Negotiation between Japan and North Korea over Japanese abductees issue has been making no progress for a long time. While the people were having no interest on the issue, Asahi Shimbun released a report that North Korea had been keeping the line of no change in former official announcement. That indicated rigid attitude of North Korea rejecting compromise to Japan. For Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has been known as a hardliner against the North, gridlock of the negotiation may cause further loss of his popularity.

Both governments of Japan and North Korea agreed that the North would be starting over investigation on Japanese abductees in May last year. One month later, North Korea launched special committee for the investigation, pretending to be serious about implementing the agreement. With positive mood between two governments, there was a speculation in Japan that Abe would visit the North and bring some abductees back with him.

Those optimistic expectations did not last long. In mid-September last year, North Korea began to buy time in the negotiation. “The investigation as a whole requires one year and we are still on the initial stage,” announced the government. Getting close to one-year period, the North unilaterally postponed the deadline of investigation this July. There is no deadline for the investigation so far.

According to Asahi’s report, North Korea has not changed its conclusion that eight died and four had not entered the state among twelve registered abductees, on which the North promised detailed research. In the summit talk between former Prime Minister Jun-ichiro Koizumi and then North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in 2002, the North announced that five were alive and eight had been dead. There has been no change in the line that eight abductees, including symbolic figure Megumi Yokota, were dead already. Japanese government does not believe in that story.

On the other hand, the North required Japan ten billion yen for research of cemetery of deceased Japanese in Korean Peninsula around the end of World War II. Although the North has been offering return of ashes of victims to Japan, Japanese government has shown no interest in the offer, worrying about negative impact on abductees issue.

No progress in the negotiation indicates that hardlining policy of Abe administration has certain limitation. Law enforcement authority of Japanese government has been laying strict regulation on the North’s financial organization in Japan. It is obvious that strategy of stick and no carrot does not work for Japan-North Korea relationship. Abe should not have planted too much great expectation on Japanese public.

Frustrated Public Responds

Major national newspapers conducted poll survey on new security legislation on last weekend. They proved that most people thought legislative procedure in the Diet was insufficient or inappropriate. Although it has been likely that a newspaper supportive for current administration drew a conclusion favorable for the government, such a tendency did not appeared this time. It showed how Japanese people were not satisfied with handling of politics by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

To a question of Asahi Shimbun whether supportive or opposite to new security bills, 51% of responders expressed opposition to the bills, while 30% supported them. On unilateral decision of the leading parties, Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, to take votes on the bills, only 16% thought it was good, making clear contrast from 67% that realized that had not been good. More significantly, 75% answered that discussion in the Diet had not been completed, overwhelming the 12% who thought that discussion had been over. Supporting rate of Abe administration marked new low of 36%.

In the poll by Mainichi Shimbun, 57% answered that they would not positively evaluate new security legislation, while 33% showed positive attitude. “Discussion was incomplete” topped as a reason why they did not accept the legislation, followed by “because I oppose to the bills” and “the bills should have been revised.” 78% thought that explanation to the public was insufficient, making contrast with 13% of “it was sufficient.” Answerer who thought the bills were violating the Constitution of Japan amounted to 60%, increasing by 8 points from previous survey in July.

Surprisingly enough, the same tendency was seen in the poll by Yomiuri Shimbun, which had ordinarily been supportive to the policies of Abe administration. In the survey, 58% answered that they would not positively evaluate new security legislation, while 31% would support that. 82% thought that explanation of the government and the leading parties were not enough. Supporting rate of Abe administration dropped to 41%, losing 4 points from previous survey.

The results of polls by major newspapers indicated unpopularity of new security legislation that Abe firmly insisted that it was necessary for protecting life and property of Japanese people. However, what he really wanted to do with the legislation seemed not to be protecting interest of Japan, as long as explanation on efficiency of new security legislation was contradictory, but exercising of collective self-defense, which no former Prime Ministers could go beyond. The leading parties are serious about regaining popularity, looking to next election as soon as next summer. But, the damage of security legislation would be more profound than they calculate.

Only Thing Unnecessary

Again, what can Japanese Self-defense Force be doing with new security bills? They allow JSDF rescuing Japanese people in foreign land, self-defense against offender in United Nations peace-keeping operation or protecting ammunition of foreign troops, even though they could be done even without the bills. One single element in new security bills that was not necessary was exercising collective self-defense.

As one of new security legislation, revised Self-defense Force Law permitted JSDF to rescue Japanese citizens in foreign country, while it had been limiting the activity to transportation. Meanwhile, the revised law laid conditions on JSDF activities of rescuing, such as actual areal control of host government or consent of host government on JSDF activity. They are the measures not to let those activities realized as use of force in foreign country that is prohibited by the Constitution of Japan. This provision will not be applied to rescue Japanese abductees in North Korea, because government of North Korea will not agree with it.

For the grey-zone situation, in which possible enemy is yet using armed force, no legislation was made this time. The government and the leading parties agreed on recognition that the order for mobilization can be made with cabinet decision through telephone conference. Although the opposite parties submitted Grey-zone Situation Bill to determine joint operation between coast guard and self-defense force, the leading parties dismissed it.

For JSDF in U.N. peace-keeping operation, revised PKO Cooperation Law added permission of use of force to get through an operation. If JSDF members find other troops or non-government workers assaulted by an armed group, they can reach and help them. Although it is doubted as violating Article 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits using force in foreign country, the revision has nothing to do with collective self-defense as long as it matters with U.N. operation.

New law called Importantly Influential Situation Law expanded JSDF coverage for supporting other troops from around Japan to all around the world. But, “importantly influential situation” can be defined within the concept of individual self-defense as long as it is concerned to existence of Japan. Even how bureaucrats argue necessity of applying collective self-defense to the situation, it can be managed with existing legal framework of individual self-defense. It is not bureaucrats but the sovereign people who have power to interpret the Constitution.

Bureaucratic Maneuver

So, what the government of Japan can do with new security bills? With the security legislation, it has been said that Japanese Self-defense Force can protect the troops with another country or transport arms of foreign troops. But, if it is necessary for security of Japan, JSDF always needs to exercise those operations whether or not new legislation is passed. The problem is reluctance of bureaucrats, highly reluctant to make those efforts, saying “We don’t like to do that because we might be arrested when we do that.” Just do it, if it were indispensable for existence of Japan.

Participation in United Nations Peace-keeping Operation was one of the greatest changes for JSDF in the past. While the operation has been strictly limited to activities for non-military supports, someone in Japanese government started to say that one of the JSDF members who helped injured foreign troops and kill his enemy with fire arms in PKO would be arrested in accordance with Japanese law, because it did not determine whether such an activity would be tolerated or not.

Obviously, it must be self-protection to support other troops who are operating together. “No, even if he were not violating international law, he must be arrested with Japanese domestic law. That is why we don’t like to be involved in such an operation. If you want us to do that, change the law to be suitable for PKO” was what Japanese bureaucrats were complaining.

One answer of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was exercising collective self-defense. Bureaucrats, mainly in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have been expecting to make that happen. They falsely believed that Japan-U.S. relationship would be firmly reinforced by more integrated joint military operation with the concept of collective self-defense. It is likely, however, that United States will be disappointed with Japan’s inability in actual military operation, because JSDF is still regulated not to be involved in offensive activities in many ways. New security legislation does not guarantee sufficient support to U.S. in battlefields.

Bureaucrats do not have power to interpret laws. Their job is not requiring security legislation to make their jobs easier, but fulfilling responsibility according to demand of sovereign people. In spite of unprecedentedly persistent protest against new security bills, bureaucrats kept on pushing lawmakers to pass the bills. What they achieved was not only freer hand in military support to foreign troops, but a significant example that the Constitution could be reinterpreted by intensive and distorted understanding by bureaucrats.

The Diet PG-13

Congress is a showcase of democracy in every country. It isn’t in Japan anymore. The leading parties were delighted, saying that new security bills were passed in the House of Councillors early Saturday morning. But, it was a unilateral recognition with incomplete procedure in the Diet. Rule of law was ignored by lawmakers who were supposed to be obeying to laws. Kids should not learn anything from them.

The most ugly scene in the passage was taking votes on new security bills in Special Committee in the House of Councillors on Thursday. One condition of taking votes in a committee is to hold central and regional hearings and report the conclusions to the committee. Chairman Yoshitada Konoike, elected from Liberal Democratic Party, pushed the discussion forward without reporting about what kind of opinions he had heard from the witnesses.

When he tried to go straight to taking votes on the bills, the opposite parties submitted a move of discredit against Konoike. After dismissing the move with majority of LDP and Komeito, Konoike started taking votes on the bills without having final discussion over the bills, which were mandated for finalizing the discussion.

During he required standing of lawmakers who support the bills, about twenty LDP lawmakers, who were not committee members, surrounded Konoike to protect him from protest of the opposite members. Although he did not see how many members stood up for the vote, Konoike declares that the bills were passed with majority of aye. Lawmakers instantly became a mob, hitting, kicking or screaming each other, reminding the audience of wrestling of monkeys for a banana.

In the plenary session next day, the opposites began to ignore the rules. Although a move to limit one speech on new security bills within fifteen minutes was passed by majority of the leading parties, a lawmaker with Democratic Party of Japan, Tetsuro Fukuyama, kept on delivering his opposite opinion from the podium further beyond his own time. “Shut you guy’s mouths up” or “Listen to me with silence” was what he reiterated in his emotional speech to denounce unilateral procedure by LDP.

This monkey business has nothing good for child education. For kids who had been taught by their teacher to listen carefully to other’s opinion or obey to school laws, the final scene for passing new security bills in the Diet must look like violent fight by rogue bosses in the class. One would hope the children to learn nothing from these barbarians in the Diet.

Why It’s Unconstitutional

Special Committee for Security Legislation in the House of Councillors passed new security bills on Thursday, which had been criticized as unconstitutional, during lawmakers of the leading and opposite parties were colliding around chairman’s desk like uncontrollable mob. The bills were submitted to plenary session of the House and waiting for final votes as early as today. People kept on chanting that the bills were unconstitutional around the Diet building.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reiterated that the bills were not unconstitutional because limited exercise of collective self-defense would be staying within a conceptual framework of past interpretations of the Constitution of Japan. He raised an official opinion of the government in 1972, which the Cabinet led by Kakuei Tanaka submitted to the Diet.

The 1972 opinion recognized that Japan could exercise necessary and minimum military power for protecting people’s rights, when Japan was offended. It also determined that Japan can exercise individual self-defense right even under Article 9 of the Constitution. But, the opinion concluded that Japan could not exercise collective self-defense right to protect foreign country that was attacked.

Raising the 1972 opinion, Abe Cabinet decided new interpretation that the Constitution allowed limited exercise of collective self-defense when obvious danger of threatening existence of state and undermining people’s right was reaching. But, three professors on constitution study opposed that new interpretation in a testimony in June. They argued that interpretation by Abe Cabinet did not cope with conclusion of the 1972 opinion and undermine legal stability of the Constitution of Japan.

Once new interpretation was denied by experts, Abe administration brought plan B to discussion in the Diet. It was a judgment of the Supreme Court in 1959, called decision in Sunagawa Incident, which allowed Japanese government to take necessary measures for protecting the country. However, a former judge of the Supreme Court firmly opposed to the interpretation. “It is fundamentally hard to recognize that the Supreme Court at that moment noticed collective self-defense force,” told former Judge, Shigeru Yamaguchi.

That was all of what Abe administration raised as causes for exercising collective self-defense. It made no further explanation why their reinterpretation was constitutional. After all, Abe is going forward with no informed consent from the public to a way that Japan abolishes its fundamental concept for a peaceful nation.

Overnight Struggle for Bills

The Special Committee for Security Legislation of House of Councillors could not make final discussion over new security bills Wednesday night. While the leading parties, Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, tried to make votes for the bills, the opposites, Democratic Party of Japan, Innovation Party and Japan Communist Party, blocked opening the committee. Around the Diet building was a vast number of people against the bills with the message of “Don’t destroy Constitution.”

The committee held a regional hearing in Yokohama, which was set as routine process for legislation of any important bills. A witness nominated by the leading parties, Toshiyuki Ito, a former officer of Marine Self-defense Force, told that new security bills were to enhance deterrence and disturb intention of other countries attempting to change status quo. While he indicated China as a possible target, the bills themselves proved to be not working for deterrence against China. Government of Japan simply expects that United States will help Japan, if Japan passes the bills.

Witnesses for the opposite parties stressed on constitutionality. “The Diet is not where giving the government a blank check. It will lose its raison d’être, if it passes the bills. It will not be a democracy, but a simple majority,” told a lawyer, Mizukami Takahisa.

When Chairman of the Committee, Yoshihisa Konoike, was leaving the building for testimony in Yokohama, people surrounded his car and tried to block him getting back to the Diet in Tokyo, where he was planning to make final discussion over the bills. After escaping the mob and arrived at the Diet, Konoike realized that the members of opposite parties were gathering committee room to block the discussion.

Meeting of ranking members to talk about procedure in the committee extended to late at night. The opposite parties argued that schedule of final discussion set by arbitral decision of the chairman could not be tolerated. Although Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and other ministers were waiting for the start in the committee room, the decision whether the committee should have final discussion were postponed to Thursday morning.

Abe wanted to achieve as many consent as possible for the bills, being afraid of erosion of his political basis, because losing popularity might affect his next agenda, constitutional amendment. But, it is obvious that the bills are insufficient to fulfill requirements of the Constitution. Public protest against the bills does not stop growing among students, professors, teenagers, the old, the middle, doctors, nurses, businessmen or housewives. Nevertheless, the administration ignores their voices. It takes its toll.

Firm Oppositions in Testimony

The Special Committee for Security Issue in House of Councillors held a hearing from five experts on new security bills in Tokyo on Tuesday. While two scholars named by the leading parties supported the necessity of the bills, four people representing opinions of the opposite parties firmly resisted the legislative procedure the leading parties was pushing. There came up various reasons to oppose the bills.

Kazuya Sakamoto, Professor of Osaka University and a member of Meeting on Restructuring Legal Basis of National Security that submitted a report for reinterpreting the Constitution last year, represented supporters of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, stressing on necessity of new security legislation. “This is a legislation to drastically reinforce deterrence for safety of our country and enhance ability to contribute to the world peace. It is necessary and preferable in the growingly severe situation surrounding our country,” told Sakamoto. Takashi Shiraishi, President of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, also supported the bills.

Against those supporters, witnesses against the bills raised various reasons to oppose them. Aki Okuda, one of the members of Student Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy, required abolishment of new security bills in current session of the Diet. “The bills should be dropped, because they could not achieve approval from the public in spite of unusual extension of current session of the Diet to the end of September,” told Okuda.

Scholars on constitution study explained why the bills were not suiting for Japanese policy more academically. “Impassively passing bills which are apparently unconstitutional is to unleash the supreme power free from any legislative regulation, more than a profanation of constitutionalism violating Article 99 of Constitution of Japan that requires respect and protection of the Constitution. It is the starting point of despotism for politicians, who are less than employees of a nation, to ignore the Constitution,” told Setsu Kobayashi, Professor Emeritus in Keio University.

Former Judge of the Supreme Court, Kunio Hamada, indicated distortion of constitutionality in the interpretation of the Constitution by Abe administration. “Changing Article 9 of the Constitution simply with Cabinet decision, that should have been done through amending process, must harm stability of legal interpretation. If one Cabinet can change it, other Cabinets are always able to overwrite it,” told Hamada. Reinterpretation of the Constitution for the security bills is hard to be justified.

Pouring Contaminated Water

Tokyo Electric Power Company started running contaminated water, after getting through purification process, into Pacific Ocean from broken First Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant on Monday. While contaminated materials had been flowing out with uncontrollable underground stream around the plant, TEPCO for the first time began to pour contaminated water, knowing it would not be completely purified. It is hard to understand that the world ignores this unprecedented type of water pollution.

TEPCO calls it “sub-drain project.” The plant has been equipped with a number of wells, called sub-drain, for controlling underground water approaching to the building. New plan was to draw water from sub-drain and pouring it to the sea after removing radioactive materials. If it were successful, TEPCO expects that it can reduce underground stream getting into the plant, mostly three hundred metric tons, by half.

The company has, however, been failing in controlling underground water. TEPCO once started bypassing underground water before it came around the plant last year. But, it turned to be unable to reduce the water flowing into the plant. Experts of TEPCO could not understand how underground water was coming through. As its result, seven hundred thousand metric tons of contaminated water is contained in one thousand tanks built around the plant.

So, next measure was to draw the water from underground right beneath the plant. TEPCO and third party supervisors would measure radioactive level of the water and announce it before flowing to the sea. Although that water would be going through purification system, called ALPS, it is already known that tritium would not be removed. There will be hundreds of thousands becquerels of tritium remaining in one litter of “purified” water.

The most worried are fishermen working around the plant. Although they were strongly against the project, they finally agreed on it, believing a story presented by TEPCO that the water would be completely blocked with new system. But, the fishery around the plant has been fatally damaged with unprecedented level of nuclear accident in the plant. There is no guarantee for them that it will turn to a normal.

The point is whether a power company can control great eco system with artificial equipments invented with various ideas stemming from one purpose of rebuilding nuclear business. A story to block vast underground water by ice wall built in the land with depth of only tens of meters sounds like myth or religion. The world is too busy in discussing serious problem of Syrian refugees to notice unfairness of pouring nuclear materials into Pacific Ocean.

Endless Legal Struggle

As a result of one-month “concentrated” dialogue between national government and Okinawa, Ministry of Defense resumed construction process of new U.S. military base in Henoko district of Nago City, Okinawa. Governor of Okinawa, Takeshi Onaga, declared on Monday that he embarked on the process of dismissing permission of development in Henoko issued by former governor. Distance between Tokyo and Okinawa looks getting wider than ever.

Receiving criticisms on its attitude of listening no voice from Okinawa, Shinzo Abe administration set a dialogue with Onaga starting mid-August, which was closed with no effective conclusion. Okinawa Defense Bureau of MOD restarted setting no-entry zone in Oura Bay, where Henoko coastal area was included. After few weeks of preparation, the bureau will resume boring survey in the seabed of Henoko coast. It will finish the survey in the rest of five points out of twenty-four this fall and step into next stage of actual construction.

Okinawa firmly resisted against zero tolerance of Abe administration. “Right after expiration of concentrated dialogue period, the government restarted relocation effort. They does not regard sentiment of us at all,” told Susumu Inamine, Mayor of Nago city, to the press. “We will accordingly resume the effort on 12^th,” told an officer of MOD to a lawmaker elected from Okinawa, according to a report of Mainichi Shimbun.

As a countermeasure against unilateral decision of national government, Onaga started the process of dismissal of the permission. “We recognized failures in issuing permission,” told Onaga in his press conference on Monday. It is likely that the permission will be void in mid-October, after Okinawa prefectural government hears opinion from ODB for three weeks. Okinawa government regards the process as the biggest exercise of governor’s authority.

The national government is preparing for ordering Okinawa to dismiss its action. It is also likely that MOD will require Minister of Land, Transportation and Infrastructure judge and temporarily suspend Okinawa’s countermeasure. If both sides refuse giving in, one of them may indict another to the court. It will be an endless legal case between the central and a local government.

Extended opposition between Tokyo and Okinawa may send wrong message to foreign nations. U.S. government is worrying impacts of the problem on U.S. troops in Okinawa, while it keeps on supporting Japanese government. China must have closely been watching what is going on in Okinawa. If Japan fails in settling this problem, there will be a significant deterioration in deterrence in southeast islands of Japan.

Explanations Collapsed

Newspapers have indicated the day when the new security bills would pass the Diet as Thursday 17^th. While lawmakers in the House of Councillors are discussing relevancy of the bills in light of constitutionality, focus of the politics is shifting to what happens after the passage. However, discussion between government side including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the opposite parties revealed that exercising collective self-defense right would not be necessary to maintain peace and security of Japan and Japan-U.S. security alliance.

In the press conference on May 15^th last year, when Prime Minister’s consultative committee submitted a report about exercising collective self-defense right, Abe explained that exercising the right was needed for rescuing Japanese citizens on an American vessel. “Suppose a conflict suddenly arises in their destinations. Suppose also that attacks is made in the sea near Japan, right when Japanese people who are escaping from where the conflict had occurred are being rescued and transported by our ally, the United States, which has the necessary capabilities to do so. Even in such cases, unless the Japanese nationals themselves were attacked, the Japan Self-defense Forces could not defend the U.S. vessels transporting the Japanese nationals. This is the current constitutional interpretation,” told him. On his back was a drawing of a mother embracing a baby on U.S. vessel heading from Korean Peninsula to Japan. People must have thought that collective self-defense was needed to help the Japanese in such a situation.

Explanation is different now. Minister of Defense, Gen Nakatani, started saying that JSDF can defend a U.S. vessel without Japanese citizens. “Whether Japanese are boarding is not an absolute condition,” Nakatani answered to a question in House of Councillors. While Abe has been stressing that exercise of collective self-defense would be strictly limited to few cases such as what he raised last year, Nakatani’s idea was genuine and full-fledged collective self-defense. Abe’s explanation was collapsed.

Another example Abe raised was removing floating mines in Hormuz Strait. Abe has been insisting that existence of Japan would be threatened, if Hormuz Strait had been blocked, because of Japan’s dependence on petroleum in Middle East. Everybody knows that Japan has ample reserve of crude oil. It is ridiculous to suppose that some states in Middle East dependent on oil exporting would clock the strait. Abe and his staffs eventually ceased raising the example of Hormuz Strait.

So, what is collective self-defense needed for? All examples Abe raised were proved to be unnecessary. That is why the people suppose something.  “It is needed for his personal delusion that Japan and his families including his grandfather, former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, has been defamed by ‘post-war regime.’”

Camouflaging Supporters

Two leading parties, Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, seems to be split over newly proposed refunding system for consumption tax. While LDP lawmakers were overwhelmingly willing to introduce the system, Komeito was sharply opposing to the system requiring dismissal. As long as their process for approving new security legislature or other important issues, however, this noisy argument should be a ceremony they need to pass through to disguise their supporters.

Ministry of Finance submitted a draft of new tax refunding system to both leading parties earlier this month, which would be introduced with consumption tax hike in 2017. Although the ministry tried to camouflage the system as reduced tax rate, naming it Japanese Version of Reduced Tax System, it was nothing but a refunding system for consumers with flat tax rate of ten percent.

Lawmakers of Komeito, which upheld introducing reduced consumption tax rate mainly for daily goods and foods as campaign promise, were furious on the idea of refunding. In an inner meeting of the party on Friday, Komeito lawmakers accused their leadership, demanding dismissal against the plan. “Scrap is scrap, unable to be casted into iron. If the party leaders for tax policy cannot scrap the plan, they need to step down,” told one lawmaker in the meeting.

Supporters of Komeito are mainly the people with lower income. It is more than obvious that universal consumption tax hike will directly damage those people. While consumers have to lose their money until it will be refunded someday in the refund system, they do not have to pay for additional tax rate, for daily foods at least, in the reduced tax system. Komeito lawmakers are afraid of disappointment of their supporters on weakness of the party against bureaucrats.

But, some of party leaders were said to have been involved in the process of architecting that refunding system. Vice-president of Komeito, Kazuo Kitagawa, secretly accumulated meetings with LDP leaders and bureaucrats with MOF, kept on hearing the opinions of his colleague in the inner meeting. Since Komeito leaders have assessed the refunding system as the baseline acceptable for their supporters with low income, they cannot reject the proposal from MOF.

Kitagawa played a role to keep connection between those two parties in the discussion over new security legislation, which was sharply criticized as unconstitutional. It is likely that Komeito lawmakers will be persuaded with some nominal reasoning, as long as the party keeps the card of leaving coalition with LDP. For serious supporters of Komeito, internal quarrel between lawmakers may look like a soap opera.