Contingency bills violate Constitution and even Japan-U.S. Security Treaty -- Akahata editorial, June 5

The House of Councilors has begun discussing a set of war contingency-related bills, revealing the serious problems concerning peace and security for Japan and the rest of Asia, as well as the contradictions inherent in the bills.

The bills are designed to provide details on the Law on Measures against Armed Attack and make it legal for the Self-Defense Forces to take part in U.S. wars on the grounds that an armed attack is predicted even though Japan is not actually attacked.

One of the bills would enable the SDF to provide the U.S. forces with ammunition and other military supplies, and transport U.S. cargo and soldiers.

This amounts to extending Japan-U.S. joint military operations beyond Japan's territory in violation of not only the Japanese Constitution but also the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

Acting against public wishes

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty allows the U.S. forces to be stationed in Japan to "contribute to the ... maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East." However, the U.S. forces are actually using Japan as a stepping stone for its wars around the world.

The treaty's Article 5 restricts Japan-U.S. joint operations to when an armed attack against Japan or the United States takes place "in the territories under the administration of Japan." Although the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was concluded in violation of the constitutional principles of peace, the treaty technically declares that Japan will not go to war abroad.

In contrast, the contingency bills will allow the SDF to supply the U.S. forces starting wars near Japan with ammunitio if an armed attack is predicted, even though Japan is not actually attacked.

At a House of Councilors committee discussion, a question was asked: Which is the clause of the Security Treaty that makes the concept of "predicted" situation applicable? The Foreign Ministry's North American Affairs Bureau director said that the situation should be regarded as a preparatory action at a preliminary stage under Article 5.

If the SDF use force as a preparatory action at a preliminary stage of being attacked, it is simply a preemptive strike.

Using such an irresponsible argument, the Koizumi Cabinet is desperate to enact the contingency-related bills. How deep the cabinet's subordination to the U.S. preemptive attack strategy is!

The Iraq War teaches us that the lawless U.S. preemptive war is under attack throughout the world as unpardonable.

It has become clear that the contingency-related bills are aimed at allowing Japan to participate in U.S. wars around the world, thus deviating even from the present Japan-U.S. Security Treaty framework.

The point is that the bills can never be compatible with the wishes of the Japanese people as indicated by recent public opinion surveys.

A great majority of the people, including those who regard the SDF as necessary for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, expressed opposition to the use of force overseas in an Asahi Shimbun survey published on May 1. Of the 31 percent who support the revision of Article 9, only two percent said they are in favor of changing Article 9 to enable the SDF to use force abroad.

It is this firm wish of the people that has defended the Constitution, in particular Article 9, in defiance of persistent U.S. pressure on Japan to change the Constitution since its establishment and the Liberal Democratic Party's moves calling for constitutional revision.

Fully aware that the war bills go against public opinion, the government has put forward a "public protection" bill with the aim of mobilizing the public for U.S. wars and another bill "to facilitate smoother operations by U.S. military forces" by allowing the U.S. forces to freely use domestic airports and harbors.

Act against war bills together with JCP

Not only the ruling coalition of the Liberal Democratic and Komei parties, but the opposition Democratic Party are pushing the contingency bills. Who can realistically entrust these parties with the peace and security of Japan and the rest of Asia?

Take action together with the JCP, which has been consistently calling for the abrogation of the security treaty, to foil the anti-people contingency bills. (end)