社説:安保転換を問う 集団的自衛権

September 14, 2015 (Mainichi Japan)
Editorial: Numerous holes in gov't explanation of right to collective self-defense
社説:安保転換を問う 集団的自衛権

 ◇政府の説明は破綻した

The government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is aiming to make sure that security-related bills which would open the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense become law by the end of this week.
 安倍政権が、安全保障関連法案を今週中に成立させようとしている。

Many experts have pointed out that the bills constitute a violation of the war-renouncing Constitution, while the majority of the public is opposed to enacting them. One cannot help but wonder why the government is making haste to enact the proposed legislation.
 多くの専門家が憲法違反と指摘し、国民の過半数が反対しているのに、なぜ成立を急ごうとするのか。

Prime Minister Abe has emphasized that the legislation is necessary to protect the lives and livelihoods of the people. However, no government officials have provided any explanation during some 200 hours of Diet deliberations that have convinced the public of why Japan cannot defend itself unless the country exercises the right to collective self-defense.
 安倍晋三首相は「国民の命と暮らしを守るため」というが、これまで衆参両院で約200時間、審議しても、集団的自衛権を行使しなければ国を守れないという説得力ある説明は、政府から聞かれなかった。

Since the House of Councillors began deliberations on the bills following their passage through the House of Representatives, the government has emphasized its concerns about China's military buildup in addition to the threat posed by North Korea. The government apparently aims to gain public understanding of the need for the security legislation by appealing to the public, which harbors a vague anxiety about the security environment surrounding Japan.
 審議が参院に移ってから、政府は北朝鮮の脅威に加え、中国の軍事的台頭への懸念を強調するようになった。国民の間に広がる漠然とした不安に訴えかけ、法案の必要性に理解を得ようという狙いだろう。

 ◇ホルムズも邦人輸送も

It is true that China and North Korea's recent moves are worrisome. As such, it is only natural that some people sympathize with the government's questions as to whether it is all right for Japan to sit by and do nothing.
 確かに中国や北朝鮮の動向は心配だ。日本はこのまま手をこまねいていていいのか、という問いかけに共感する人もいるだろう。

However, both legislators, government officials and the public should calmly consider what Japan can do and cannot do to respond to the security situation and what kind of legislation should be developed to make up for shortcomings.
 だが、こういうときだからこそ日本はいま何ができて、何ができないか。足りない点を補うために、どんな法制を整備すべきか、冷静に検討する必要がある。

Let's consider how to defend Okinawa Prefecture's Senkaku Islands, which are also claimed by China and Taiwan. The Senkakus are part of Japan's territory. Therefore, Japan would exercise the right to individual self-defense to defend the islands in case of an armed attack. The United States would supposedly defend the islands jointly with Japan under Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
 差し迫った課題である沖縄県・尖閣諸島を考えてみる。尖閣は日本の領土だ。この防衛は、日本を守るための個別的自衛権で対処する。米国も日米安保条約5条にもとづき共同で防衛にあたると期待されている。

Therefore, Japan would respond to contingencies on the islands with its own right to individual self-defense and under the Japan-U.S. security arrangement. Such being the case, Japan would not exercise the right to collective self-defense to respond to such contingencies. A country is supposed to exercise the right to collective self-defense to use force to defend another country that has come under armed attack.
 つまり個別的自衛権と日米安保で対処するわけで、他国が攻められたときに日本がそれを守るために反撃する集団的自衛権とは関係がない。

The government has cited minesweeping in the Strait of Hormuz in the Middle East and guarding U.S. military vessels transporting Japanese nationals as specific examples of operations that Japan would conduct by exercising the right to collective self-defense.
 政府が、集団的自衛権行使の代表例としたのは「中東・ホルムズ海峡での機雷掃海」と「邦人輸送中の米艦防護」だ。

Government officials have less actively mentioned minesweeping in the Strait of Hormuz recently in the face of growing criticism over Japan's exercise of the right to collective self-defense for economic reasons.
 ホルムズ海峡の機雷掃海は、経済的な理由で集団的自衛権を行使することに批判が高まり、政府は最近では積極的に言及しなくなった。

The government assumes that Japan would defend U.S. military ships carrying Japanese evacuees mainly in case of an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula although no geographic restrictions are placed on such operations. Prime Minister Abe places particular importance to such missions as examples of cases in which Japan needs to exercise the right to collective self-defense, which he explained by showing charts and illustrations.
 邦人輸送中の米艦防護は、地域は限定していないが、主に朝鮮半島有事(戦争)を想定している。首相がパネルを使って集団的自衛権行使の必要性を訴えたこだわりの事例だ。

However, Defense Minister Gen Nakatani has stated that whether Japanese nationals are aboard U.S. vessels is not an absolute condition for Japan exercising the right to collective self-defense.
 だが、中谷元防衛相は「邦人が乗っているかいないかは、(条件の)絶対的なものではない」と語った。

In regard to guarding U.S. military vessels in case of an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, discussions were also held on defending U.S. Aegis-equipped vessels engaging in missile defense activities. However, it is unrealistic to assume cases where the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) would need to guard U.S. vessels because such vessels seldom operate individually without forming a fleet with other ships in case of emergency. Government officials' statement wavered over this point.
 朝鮮半島有事の米艦防護では、このほか、ミサイル防衛にあたる米イージス艦を守るケースも議論された。有事に米艦が艦隊を編成せずに単独で行動し、自衛隊に守ってもらう事態は現実には考えにくい。この点でも政府の答弁は揺れ動いた。

Serious questions remain as to whether the government needs to open the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense by arbitrarily changing the interpretation of the war-renouncing Constitution -- the interpretation that the government had upheld for more than four decades. The government failed to show clear examples of missions that Japan can conduct by only exercising this right in a manner that can convince the public. Therefore, the government's explanation of the matter has collapsed.
 40年以上維持されてきた憲法9条の解釈を強引に変更してまで、なぜ集団的自衛権を行使する必要があるのか。政府は、それに当てはまる事例をついに示せなかった。説明は破綻したと断じざるを得ない。

The government's primary purpose of enacting security legislation is to enable the SDF to support U.S. combat operations on a global scale and make the bilateral alliance more reciprocal by allowing Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense. By doing so, Japan is trying to encourage the United States to side with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and use the reinforced Japan-U.S. alliance to counter China's military buildup.
 政府が法案に込めた狙いは、米軍の戦いを自衛隊が世界規模で支援し、集団的自衛権の行使が可能な国になることで、日米同盟をより双務的にすることだろう。それによって米国をアジア太平洋に引きつけ、強化された日米同盟で中国の軍拡に対応することを目指している。

From the beginning, the government placed priority on opening the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense rather than repeating discussions on bills necessary to respond to changes in the security environment surrounding Japan.
 安全保障環境の変化に対応するため、必要な法案の議論を一つずつ積み上げたというよりも、集団的自衛権の行使容認ありきだった。

 ◇あまりに大きいリスク

Therefore, the contents of the bills do not necessarily match specific changes in the actual security environment, making it appear that government officials' explanations have changed frequently.
 だから、必ずしも現実の安保環境の変化と法案の内容が結びつかず、ちぐはぐになり、政府の説明がころころ変わったように見える。

It is necessary to review Japan's legislation regarding security to respond to changes in the security environment. For example, it would be a good idea for the ruling and opposition parties to discuss expanding logistical support that the SDF can extend to U.S. forces in case of an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula under the "emergency-at-periphery" law, while retaining geographical restrictions on such activities and a ban on the provision of ammunition to U.S. forces.
 私たちは、安保環境の変化に対応するため、法制の見直しは必要だと考えている。例えば、現行の周辺事態法は、朝鮮半島有事を想定して米軍への後方支援を定めた法律だが、地理的な制約を維持し、弾薬の提供をしないなどの縛りをかけたまま、与野党で話し合って支援内容の拡充を検討することがあっていい。

However, specific operations that the government claims that the SDF cannot conduct unless the country exercises the right to collective self-defense apparently can be performed by using the right to individual self-defense in principle.
 だが、集団的自衛権の行使が必要と政府が言うものは、基本的に個別的自衛権で対応できると考える。

The three new conditions for using force by exercising the right to collective self-defense, such as a threat to Japan's survival, provided for by the proposed security legislation, are ambiguous, and the executive branch of the government would be allowed to judge whether contingencies meet these conditions in a comprehensive manner.
 集団的自衛権の行使を認めた今回の法案は、「存立危機事態」など行使の新3要件があいまいで、政府が総合的に判断するという仕組みだ。

Specific standards for going ahead with the use of force are the most important matter in SDF operations. Under the bills, however, the executive branch could stretch the interpretation of the standards at its own discretion, and there are fears that Japan's use of force overseas could expand without limits.
 どういう基準で武力行使に踏み切るのかという、自衛隊の運用で最も重要な問題が、国民の目に見えない。政府の裁量次第で拡大解釈が可能であり、海外での武力行使が際限なく広がる恐れがある。

If the government-sponsored bills are to be enforced, it could rather cause security risks, and eventually lead to political risks.
 政府案が実行に移されれば、むしろ安全保障上のリスクとなる。さらには、政治上のリスクも招く可能性がある。

The Cabinet's decision in July 2014 to allow Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense is inconsistent with the government's past interpretation of the Constitution as banning Japan from exercising the right to collective self-defense even though the country is granted this right under international law. Although experts have pointed out that the bills are unconstitutional, the government has been unable to provide any convincing explanation of the bills' constitutionality.
 集団的自衛権の行使を認めた憲法解釈変更は、過去の解釈と論理的な整合性がとれていない。法案は憲法違反だと指摘されても、政府は最後まで納得いく答えを示せなかった。

If the bills are to be passed into law, the stability of the country's legal system, which is headed by the Constitution, would be destroyed. Enactment of the bills would raise concerns that both the government and the Constitution would lose public trust. It could even destabilize Japan's politics.
 法案を成立させれば、憲法を頂点とする法体系の安定性は失われるだろう。憲法も政府も国民から信頼されなくなる懸念がある。政治そのものが不安定になりかねない。

The government claims that the enactment of the proposed security legislation would strengthen the Japan-U.S. alliance and increase deterrence provided by the alliance. The bills may have such advantages, but there are more risks involving the legislation. Such bills should not be enacted.
 政府は、法整備により日米同盟が強化され抑止力が高まると言う。そういうメリットがあるとしても、リスクのほうがはるかに大きい。そんな法案を成立させてはならない。

毎日新聞 2015年09月13日 02時30分
[PR]

by kiyoshimat | 2015-09-15 12:38 | 英字新聞

<< 社説:安保転換を問う 週内採決... 尖閣国有化3年 領土守り抜く体... >>