Japan's opposition should be more responsible

The Yomiuri Shimbun, Asia News Network, Tokyo

Any opposition party must work with the ruling camp to ensure the passage of legislation needed to protect national interests if it presumes to play a responsible role in politics.

During a meeting of the House of Representatives Budget Committee Thursday, Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan) Secretary General Naoto Kan came to an agreement with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi over what should be Japan's stance on an anticipated U.S. military response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

The prime minister and the secretary general of the largest opposition party agreed that the recent terrorist strikes represented a new kind of war. They also agreed that Japan has the obligation to think about how it can help root out international terrorism, without blindly following precedents set by other nations.

Earlier, Minshuto had adopted a basic policy on a government- sponsored bill to enable Self-Defense Forces to provide logistic support for a U.S.-led military campaign against those believed to be responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The policy called on the nation to join global efforts to eradicate terrorism. The main opposition party insisted that a new law was needed and the SDF had to be called into play, saying that new measures, not provided for under existing frameworks -- legal or otherwise -- would be needed to accomplish these goals.

Therefore, Minshuto, the government and the ruling coalition parties had no differences over what kind of role Japan should play.

Minshuto should thus have no difficulty in working with the ruling coalition to revise the bill and push it through the Diet at an early date.

In a television appearance Wednesday night, however, Minshuto leader Yukio Hatoyama said his party's basic policy barely stayed within the framework of the Constitution, insisting there was no room left for his party to make concessions to the ruling coalition on the bill.

Hatoyama's argument could be regarded as an agreement to the bill in principle but an objection to details. His reasoning is extremely difficult to comprehend. If Minshuto hopes to fulfill its duties as a responsible opposition party, Hatoyama should find common ground between his party's proposed details and those of the ruling parties.

For example, Minshuto has argued that the government should gain Diet approval for a logistic support plan to be drawn up under the bill before the SDF goes into action. However, that approach could make it impossible for the SDF to respond to an emergency quickly, thus doing little to help.

If Minshuto hopes to turn the bill into temporary legislation enabling the SDF to provide a limited range of logistic support, the party should work to ensure that the Diet can thoroughly debate all aspects of the bill. Doing so means that any plan compiled under the proposed law has, in effect, been approved by the Diet before the SDF sees action.

Furthermore, Minshuto's basic policy requires the UN Security Council (UNSC) to adopt a resolution approving the use of force by the United States for the SDF to be able to provide logistic support. However, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said such a resolution is not needed for a U.S. military response, saying a UNSC resolution adopted earlier to condemn terrorism would suffice. If Japan adopted the approach outlined by Minshuto, it could end up with its hands tied during a U.S. military campaign against terrorism.

Minshuto has insisted that the SDF be banned from transporting weapons and ammunition for U.S. forces. In addition, the party remains cautious about what SDF personnel should be allowed to do on foreign territory -- probably Pakistan -- if they were dispatched overseas under the bill.

Minshuto's basic policy is based on a long-held Cabinet Legislation Bureau opinion that the SDF should not be permitted to engage in acts directly linked to the use of force by other countries.

Undoubtedly, Article 9 of the Constitution bans Japan's "use of force as means of settling international disputes." It should be noted, however, that "international disputes," as the Constitution defines them, are wars of aggression. There is no reason to believe that a global campaign to protect the world from terrorism can be deemed a war of aggression.

Koizumi's answer to a question on an antiterrorism law during Thursday's Diet session seemed to reflect this interpretation, when he said, "I am not thinking (about the law) in terms of (Japan's) right to individual or collective self-defense.

The government cannot deal with a situation that has not been presupposed by the Constitution and nation's laws if it adheres to a past interpretation of the nation's supreme legal framework in deciding its actions.

If Minshuto were a ruling party, it would never be able to take an overly cautious attitude toward Japan's role in a global fight against terrorism. A serious question now facing Minshuto is whether the party will be able to think and act in a manner befitting a ruling party.