Alternative Bills for Security

cNew security legislation made by Shinzo Abe administration, which enabled Japanese government exercising collective self-defense right, was apparent and designated violation of the Constitution of Japan, in terms of official interpretation of the government. The opposite parties submitted two packages of legislation, one of which was to repeal it and another was the alternatives. This is an effort to contain Japanese security policy within the constitution.

The draft for abolishing new security legislation was submitted by Democratic Party of Japan, Japan Communist Party, Innovation Party, Social Democratic Party and People’s Life Party. Claiming that new security legislation was unconstitutional because it allowed collective self-defense without direct offense on Japan or logistic support in the place close battle field, five parties aimed abolishing all eleven laws and limit defense policy to exercise of individual self-defense.

The alternative measures from the opposite parties consisted of three bills, submitted by DPJ and Innovation Party. One was revised version of Peripheral Situation Law. Crucially Affective Situation Law legislated by Abe administration enabled Japanese government exercising collective self-defense right without actual attack, causing criticisms that it was designated to help United States everywhere in the world.

The draft of revised Peripheral Situation Law limited operation of Japanese Self-defense Force to the area close to Japan, while it allowed supporting troops other than U.S. Force. It denied supply of ammunition or fueling military aircraft waiting for takeoff. It also included evacuation of Japanese citizens in foreign country in contingency.

The second bill was revising of Peace-keeping Operation Cooperation Law. While Abe administration allowed JSDF running to foreign troops for guarding, the draft limited the object to the civilians. And it also required advanced approval of the Diet for JSDF overseas operation.

The third bill was Areal Guard Law, which determined JSDF activity in “gray zone,” a situation between use of force and exercise of police authority. It enabled JSDF to support Coast Guard without cabinet decision, if the Diet would approve the area for the operation. Abe administration allowed such activities only with telephone conference by Cabinet members.

Main point of security controversy is whether Japanese government can take necessary measures within the principle of Constitution of Japan. While Abe administration thought that it was impossible for the traditional interpretation of the constitution to protect Japan, the opposite parties attempted to do that with current constitution. In other words, it is a struggle over post-war regime of Japan.