公明党と憲法―自民にただ屈するのか

June 14, 2014
EDITORIAL: Defense policy talks test New Komeito’s political integrity
公明党と憲法―自民にただ屈するのか

In talks with the ruling Liberal Democratic Party over Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s initiative to allow Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense, junior coalition partner New Komeito is showing signs of accepting the policy switch if certain conditions are met.
　集団的自衛権の与党協議で、公明党が行使容認を前提とした条件闘争に向かっている。

With firm resolution, Abe is pursuing a formal Cabinet endorsement of a change in the government’s traditional interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution.
　憲法解釈を変える閣議決定に向けた安倍首相の意思は固い。

New Komeito has discarded the option of dissolving its alliance with the LDP in order to protect its political integrity.
New Komeito appears to have given up hope of holding its own against the fierce political pressure from its much bigger ally, and has decided to focus on setting strict conditions for supporting Abe’s initiative.
一方で公明党は、連立離脱を自ら封印した。自民党の攻勢に耐えきれそうもないが、せめて厳しい条件はつけておきたい。そんな思いがうかがえる。

No matter what conditions it may set, however, the fact is that New Komeito will endorse Japan’s exercise of the right to collective self-defense if it strikes a deal with the LDP. Compromising on this vital issue could create serious problems for the future. The party leadership should be aware of the huge political implications of its decision on this issue.
　だが、どんな条件をつけたところで、集団的自衛権を認めることに変わりはない。妥協は将来に禍根を残す。公明党はその重みを肝に銘じるべきだ。

During talks between the two parties on June 13, Masahiko Komura, who represents the LDP side, proposed “three requirements” for Japan’s involvement in collective self-defense operations.
　きのうの与党協議で、自民党の高村正彦座長が、日本が自衛権を発動するための新しい「３要件」の私案を示した。

Komura’s personal proposal would change the first of the three requirements the LDP has suggested, which says that there should be urgent and unjust aggression against Japan.
　いまの３要件のうち、「我が国に対する急迫不正の侵害があること」という第一の要件を、次のように改めるという。

The first requirement as proposed by Komura says: “An armed attack against Japan has started or an armed attack against another country has started and as a result there are concerns that Japan’s existence could be threatened and that the Japanese people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could be fundamentally violated.”
　「我が国に対する武力攻撃が発生したこと、または他国に対する武力攻撃が発生し、これにより我が国の存立が脅かされ、国民の生命、自由及び幸福追求の権利が根底から覆されるおそれがあること」

This proposal goes far beyond the “limited use” of the right indicated by the LDP. It could end up paving the way for the use of the nation’s right to collective self-defense in a wide range of situations.
　自民党が主張する「限定容認」どころではない。集団的自衛権がかなり広範囲に認められることになりかねない。

The phrase that the people’s right could be “fundamentally violated” has been inserted in response to New Komeito’s argument.
　後段にある、国民の生命などが「根底から覆される」というくだりは、公明党の考えを踏まえて盛り込まれた。

This phrase was originally a part of the government’s 1972 statement, which said Japan is not allowed to exercise its right to collective self-defense. Komura has used an expression that was once used to describe a situation that allows Japan to exercise its right to individual self-defense in a cunning way that is useful for his purpose.
　もともとは「集団的自衛権の行使は許されない」と結論づけた７２年の政府見解の一部だ。個別の自衛権を認める前提として使われていた表現を、都合よく援用しているにすぎない。

New Komeito believes that strict observance of the requirement would ensure that Japan’s actual use of the right to collective self-defense will be almost limited to situations in which U.S. warships carrying Japanese citizens for evacuation need protection.
　公明党は、これが厳格に守られれば、集団的自衛権として実際に認められるのは、避難する日本人を乗せた米艦の防護にほぼ限られると見る。

But Komura’s proposal leaves room for a broader interpretation of the rule by containing the term “concerns” with regard to the possibility of the people’s right being “fundamentally violated.”
ただし高村私案は、「根底から覆される」に「おそれ」をつけて、拡大解釈の余地を残している。

New Komeito is opposed to this potential loophole. The party is apparently trying to score at least some political points against the LDP by setting strict conditions.
　この抜け穴に、公明党は反発する。なんとか一矢を報いたいということなのだろう。

Even so, there is no denying that New Komeito, if it accepts the LDP’s proposal, will help the Abe administration to change the government’s constitutional interpretation at will.
　だとしても、政権が意のままに憲法解釈を変えることに手を貸すのは間違いない。

Imagine what could happen if this kind of departure from the rule of law is tolerated.
　そんな「法の支配」からの逸脱が許されれば、どうなるか。

Isao Iijima, special Cabinet adviser, recently indicated the possibility of a change in the government’s interpretation about the constitutional principle of the separation of religion and politics. It was a thinly veiled warning to New Komeito, which is backed by the lay Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai.
　飯島勲内閣官房参与が公明党と創価学会との関係をとらえ、憲法の「政教分離」についての政府見解は変わりうると、におわせた。

Iijima’s remark is tantamount to the declaration that the powers that be might be free to change the official interpretation of not just the war-renouncing Article 9, but any other part of the Constitution that they don’t like.
　時の権力者が気に入らなければ、９条以外の解釈にも手をつけない保証はない。こう自ら明らかにしたようなものだ。

Does New Komeito still intend to go along with the LDP’s attempt to force through an effective amendment to the Constitution?
　公明党は、それでもついて行くというのか。自民党の力ずくの憲法改変に。

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 14