9条と自衛隊 憲法改正へ論議の活性化を

The Yomiuri Shimbun (Feb. 11, 2012)
Promote active discussions on revising Constitution
9条と自衛隊 憲法改正へ論議の活性化を(2月10日付・読売社説)

It is necessary to advance discussions on revising the Constitution to bring it in line with reality, based on the historical background of discussions over the Self-Defense Forces.
 歴史的な経緯を踏まえて、現実に合致した憲法に改正するための議論を進めることが必要だ。

At the House of Representatives Budget Committee, former Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba of the Liberal Democratic Party recently asked Defense Minister Naoki Tanaka why the SDF is constitutional.
 衆院予算委員会で自民党の石破茂・元防衛相が田中防衛相に自衛隊合憲の根拠をただした。

Ishiba suggested that the so-called Ashida revision provides legal justification for the SDF.
「芦田修正」がその根拠ではないかとも指摘した。

Tanaka was hard-pressed for an answer and only said: "I don't understand that point. I'd like to understand it by respectfully listening to your knowledge."
 田中氏は、答弁に窮し、「その点、私は理解していない。先生のご知見を拝聴しながらよく理解したい」と述べるにとどまった。

The Ashida revision is named after Hitoshi Ashida, who in 1946 advocated a revision to the section concerning renunciation of war at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives committee that discussed a bill to revise the then existing Constitution of the Empire of Japan. Ashida was chairman of the committee.
 芦田修正とは、憲法改正を論議した1946年の衆院帝国憲法改正案委員会小委員会で芦田均委員長が主唱し、実現したものだ。

The draft revision bill said in Paragraph 1 of Article 9 that Japan renounces wars of aggression, and in Paragraph 2 it stipulated war potential will never be maintained.
 原案は9条1項で侵略戦争を放棄し、2項で戦力不保持を明記していた。

Under the Ashida revision, the words "In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph" were inserted in the beginning of Paragraph 2.
2項の冒頭に「前項の目的を達するため」を挿入した。

Because of this revision, there arose in later years an interpretation of the Constitution that holds Japan can possess war potential such as land, sea and air forces for self-defense.
 これにより、自衛の目的であるならば、陸海空軍の戦力を持ち得るとする解釈論が後年、生まれることになる。

===

'Minimum' overemphasized

However, successive governments' interpretation of the Constitution has not used the Ashida revision as a legal basis for viewing the SDF as constitutional.
 だが、政府解釈は、芦田修正を自衛隊合憲の根拠としてこなかった。

The government has been consistent in its view that maintaining the SDF does not violate the Constitution as long as it is "an armed organization kept to the minimum necessary" for self-defense.
自衛のための「必要最小限度の実力組織」であれば、憲法に反しないとの見解で一貫している。

In other words, the government's interpretation is that the SDF is not the war potential that is banned under the Constitution.
自衛隊は、憲法の禁じる「戦力」ではないというわけである。

Tanaka is under fire for lacking basic knowledge concerning defense issues. As the defense minister, he should have been able to explain the historical background.
 「防衛問題の基本的な知識に欠ける」との批判を浴びる田中氏だが、防衛相なら本来、そうした経緯も含めて説明すべきだった。

However, the government should not cling to its conventional approach of trying to make its position sound plausible.
 ただし、従来の、つじつまあわせのような政府見解を墨守すればよいわけではない。

===

Times have changed

The security environment around Japan has significantly changed from the time when the Constitution was established.
 日本を取り巻く安全保障環境は憲法制定時から様変わりした。

The conventional interpretation of the Constitution regarding the SDF now hurts national interests.
自衛隊を巡る憲法解釈は、今や国益を害する事態を招いている。

A typical example is the government's interpretation of the nation's right to collective self-defense.
 典型的なのが、集団的自衛権である。

It states that Japan has such a right but cannot exercise it because doing so exceeds the scope of the "minimum necessary."
権利を有しているが、行使は「必要最小限度の範囲」を超えるため許されない――

This interpretation constrains the SDF's cooperative activities with U.S. forces and other countries' militaries, and hampers deepening the Japan-U.S. alliance.
この解釈は米軍などとの協調行動を制約し、日米同盟の深化を妨げている。

The government's view, which developed in the Cabinet Legislation Bureau after World War II, should immediately be reviewed at the initiative of elected officials.
 内閣法制局が戦後積み重ねてきた政府見解こそ、政治主導で早急に見直すべきである。

There is a great discrepancy between Article 9 and reality.
 憲法9条と現実との乖離(かいり)は大きい。

All in all, it is right and proper to squarely work on a constitutional revision to give the SDF a clear status.
やはり、自衛隊を明確に位置づけるため、正面から憲法改正に取り組むのが筋だろう。

In its proposal to revise the Constitution in 2004, The Yomiuri Shimbun said that the Constitution should stipulate Japan may possess armed forces for self-defense even while preserving the pacifism aspect of Article 9.
 読売新聞は2004年の憲法改正試案で、9条の平和主義は継承し、「自衛のための軍隊の保持」を明記することを提起している。

Based on the government's interpretation of Article 9 and criticism against it, we hope each political party will deepen discussions of what Article 9 should be at the Deliberative Council on the Constitution of each chamber of the Diet.
 政府解釈とそれに対する批判を踏まえて、各党は衆参両院の憲法審査会で9条の在り方について大いに議論を深めてもらいたい。

Article 9 is not the only issue on which revision to the Constitution is called for.
 改正の論点は9条にとどまらない。

Although there is a gap between political parties' views of the Constitution, discussions on the top law, which is the foundation of the nation, must not stagnate.
各党間で考え方の開きはあるが、国の根幹である憲法の論議を停滞させてはならない。

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Feb. 10, 2012)
(2012年2月10日01時16分 読売新聞)
[PR]

by kiyoshimat | 2012-02-12 03:08 | 英字新聞

<< 木語:バッタ来襲の恐怖=金子秀敏 整備新幹線 着工ありきでなく十... >>