2014年05月05日
安倍政権と憲法―平和主義の要を壊すな
May 03, 2014
EDITORIAL: Abe taking pacifist Constitution away from the people
安倍政権と憲法―平和主義の要を壊すな
Japan’s Constitution cannot be revised with a simple majority vote in the Diet.
国会の多数決だけで、憲法を改めることはできない。
Any constitutional amendment must first be initiated through a vote of two-thirds or more of all members of each house in the Diet and then approved by the public with a majority vote in a special referendum. This procedure is stipulated in Article 96 of the Constitution.
憲法を改正するには、衆参両院の３分の２以上の賛成で発議し、国民投票で過半数の承認を得なければならない。憲法９６条が定める手続きだ。
Last spring, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began a political campaign to make it easier to rewrite the Constitution by easing this procedure, but later gave up the idea.
安倍首相は昨春、この手続きを緩めようとして断念した。
Abe’s attempt was foiled by opposition expressed by many Japanese who became aware of its dangerous implications. They realized that if the government is allowed to change the Constitution at will, the all-important principles of constitutionalism, which restrict the power of government, would be violated.
時の政権の意向だけで憲法が変えられては、権力にしばりをかける立憲主義が侵される。こう気づいた多くの国民が、反対の声を上げたからだ。
Abe is now seeking to tamper with the supreme law in a different way.
安倍首相は、今年は違うやり方で、再び憲法に手をつけようとしている。
Instead of pursuing a change in a constitutional provision, the prime minister is working to enable Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense through a Cabinet decision to change the government’s interpretation of the Constitution regarding the issue. The government’s traditional position has been that Japan has the right to collective self-defense, but is banned by the Constitution from exercising that right.
条文はいじらない。かわりに９条の解釈を変更する閣議決定によって、「行使できない」としてきた集団的自衛権を使えるようにするという。
This way, even a Diet vote is not needed to make the policy change, which raises some serious constitutional questions.
これだと国会の議決さえ必要ない。
What would be the consequences of that step? The pacifist ideal of the Constitution would lose its spirit even if it remains alive in form.
その結果どうなるか。日本国憲法の平和主義は形としては残っても、その魂が奪われることになるのは明らかだ。
COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE MEANS DEFENDING ALLIES
■本質は他国の防衛
Some policymakers within the government have proposed to make it clear that Japan’s exercise of its right to collective self-defense would be limited to the minimum necessary--only in areas surrounding Japan and in situations where it is needed to ensure the nation’s existence.
政権内ではこんな議論がされている。集団的自衛権の行使は日本周辺で「わが国の存立を全うする」ための必要最小限に限る。
They argue that the 1959 Supreme Court ruling over the so-called Sunagawa Incident, which concerned the constitutionality of the presence of U.S. forces in Japan, didn’t ban Japan from using its right to collective self-defense. The ruling actually said, “It is indisputable that, as an act of exercising its proper powers as a nation, Japan is allowed to take self-defense measures that are necessary for maintaining its own peace and security and ensuring its existence.”
それは５９年の砂川事件の最高裁判決も認めている――。
These policymakers are making the case for allowing Japan limited use of its right to collective self-defense.
いわゆる「限定容認論」だ。
One example often cited in this argument is a situation in which a U.S. warship comes under attack in waters near Japan. Abe and other proponents of the proposal ask whether it is acceptable that the Self-Defense Forces are not allowed to come to rescue when a U.S. naval vessel operating to defend Japan comes under attack. They warn that the SDF’s failure to help a U.S. ship in such a situation would mean an end to Japan’s security alliance with the United States.
しばしば例示されるのは、日本近海での米艦防護だ。首相らは日本を守るため警戒中の米艦が襲われた時、自衛隊が救えなくていいのかと問う。それでは日米同盟は終わる、とも。
But many people in and outside the government believe the SDF can respond to such cases as part of Japan’s exercise of its right to individual self-defense or its police authority.
しかし、これは日本の個別的自衛権や警察権で対応できるとの見解が政府内外に根強い。
In other words, this problem can be solved without treating it as the constitutional issue of collective self-defense. There is no need to use a distorted interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling over the Sunagawa Incident, which only acknowledged Japan’s right to individual self-defense, as a tool to promote the case for collective self-defense.
ことさら集団的自衛権という憲法の問題にしなくても、解決できるということだ。日本の個別的自衛権を認めたに過ぎない砂川判決を、ねじ曲げて援用する必要もない。
A decision to allow Japan to use its right to collective self-defense, even if the use is limited to the minimum necessary, would amount to a total about-face on the traditional security policy.
仮に集団的自衛権の行使を認めれば、どんなに必要最小限だといっても、これまでの政策から百八十度の転換となる。
Collective self-defense, by nature, involves the defense of other countries. But a small leak can eventually sink a great ship.
集団的自衛権の本質は、他国の防衛という点にある。アリの一穴は必ず広がる。
It is difficult to impose an effective restriction on Japan’s use of its military power that is clearer than the current rule that Japan can only use armed force when it is directly attacked.
「日本が攻撃された時だけ武力を行使する」という以上に明確な歯止めを設けることは困難だ。
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s draft proposal to revise the Constitution calls for making the SDF full-fledged national defense forces that can take part in collective self-defense operations.
自民党の憲法改正草案は、自衛隊を集団的自衛権も行使できる「国防軍」にするという。
What the Abe administration is trying to achieve is realizing this proposal without making an amendment to the Constitution through the established formal procedure.
安倍政権がやろうとしていることは、憲法を変えずにこれを実現しようというに等しい。
The administration is making an outrageous attempt to push through an effective constitutional amendment based on a government proposal merely through discussions within the ruling camp.
政府が方針を決め、与党協議だけで実質的な改憲をしてしまおうという乱暴さ。
Why is the Abe administration getting away with such unacceptable behavior?
なぜ、こんなことがまかり通ろうとしているのか。
NO EFFECTIVE CHECKS ON GOVERNMENT BY LEGISLATURE
■行政府への抑止なく
The most obvious factor behind this distressing political landscape is the inability of the Diet to do its job properly. It is failing to perform its role of clarifying important policy issues through discussions in order to provoke meaningful public debate.
真っ先に目につくのは国会の無力だ。論争によって問題点を明らかにし、世論を喚起する。この役割が果たせていない。
Abe has been making little effort to offer serious answers to questions from opposition parties in the Diet, and the wretchedly weakened opposition has been letting him get away with it.
対立する政党の質問にまともに答えようとしない首相。それを許してしまう野党の弱さは、目を覆うばかりだ。
Some LDP lawmakers who initially voiced skepticism about Abe’s initiative have quickly become extremely quiet, apparently after the prime minister started signaling the possibility of a Cabinet and party leadership reshuffle.
自民党内にあった慎重論も、内閣改造や党人事がちらついたのか、またたく間にしぼんだ。
The nation’s legislature is totally impotent to monitor and check the behavior of the administration in any effective way to prevent its dangerous moves.
立法府から行政府への監視や抑止がまるで利かない現状。
What would happen if, to top it all, the constitutional restriction on Japan’s use of its military capabilities is removed?
そのうえ、憲法の歯止めがなくなればどうなるか。
Japan has been following U.S. military policy. It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to foresee the scope of SDF operations expanding beyond the “minimum necessary” under pressure from Washington.
米国の軍事政策に追従し続けてきた日本だ。米国の要請に押され自衛隊の活動が「必要最小限」を超えるのは想像に難くない。
In 2003, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi supported U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to declare war on Iraq and, in response to a U.S. request, sent SDF troops to the Middle East to support reconstruction efforts.
０３年のイラク戦争で、小泉首相はブッシュ大統領の開戦の決断を支持し、自衛隊を復興支援に派遣した。
Koizumi justified his decisions simply by repeating that supporting the United States was in Japan’s best interest. The Koizumi administration showed no signs of making objective, cool-headed assessments of the situation.
小泉氏の理屈は「米国支持が国益にかなう」の一点張り。情勢を客観的に判断する姿勢は見えなかった。
Abe has established the National Security Council. But the minutes of its meetings have not been published, and the newly enacted state secrets protection law is likely to allow the government to keep the public in the dark about the process of making policy decisions to mobilize the SDF.
安倍首相は国家安全保障会議を発足させた。だが、議事録は公開されず、特定秘密保護法によって自衛隊を動かす政策決定過程は闇に閉ざされそうだ。
Under these circumstances, would the government be able to make the right decision should it be asked to send SDF troops to battlefields of another U.S.-led war? Would the Diet and the public be able to stop such a deployment of the SDF?
こんな体制のもと、第二のイラク戦争への参加を求められたら、政府は正しい判断を下せるのか。国会や国民がそれを止めることができるのか。
DON'T TAKE CONSTITUTION FROM THE PEOPLE
■憲法を取り上げるな
Some administration officials are saying the government should try to win the support of as many members of the public as possible for the initiative, which would allow the government to mobilize SDF troops for participation in collective self-defense operations.
「自衛隊員に出動命令を出すからには、一人でも多くの国民の理解を得たい」。政権の中からはこんな声が聞こえる。
If the government insists on making it possible for Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense, there is only one path it should take.
集団的自衛権の行使をどうしても認めたいというのならば、とるべき道はひとつしかない。
It should present a draft amendment to the Constitution to take the step and follow the formal procedure--initiating the amendment through a vote of a two-thirds majority in each house of the Diet and then getting it approved by the people with a majority vote at a special referendum.
そのための憲法改正案を示し、衆参両院の３分の２の賛成と国民投票での過半数の承認を得ることだ。
To be fair, the security situation in East Asia is certainly becoming dangerous due to North Korea’s development of nuclear arms and China’s aggressive military buildup. We can understand that the government is pursuing this initiative out of a desire to ensure Japan’s security.
北朝鮮の核開発や中国の軍備増強などで、東アジアの安全保障環境は厳しくなっている。いまの議論が、日本の安全を確実にしたいという思いからきていることはわかる。
If so, the government should first start debate on legislative moves needed to deal with specific issues, instead of immediately touching the Constitution.
ならば一足飛びに憲法にふれるのでなく、個々の案件に必要な法整備は何かという点から議論を重ねるべきではないか。
Even if the government’s proposal is reasonable from the viewpoints of policy and military needs, that doesn’t justify distorting key constitutional principles through a change in the government’s interpretation of them.
仮に政策的、軍事的合理性があったとしても、解釈変更で憲法をねじ曲げていいという理由にはならない。
The way the Abe administration is pursuing this controversial initiative is totally inconsistent with the prime minister’s pledge to put the Constitution back in the hands of the people. Instead, it is tantamount to taking the Constitution away from the public.
いまの政権のやり方は、首相が唱える「憲法を国民の手に取り戻す」どころか、「憲法を国民から取り上げる」ことにほかならない。
--The Asahi Shimbun, May 3
EDITORIAL: Abe taking pacifist Constitution away from the people
安倍政権と憲法―平和主義の要を壊すな
Japan’s Constitution cannot be revised with a simple majority vote in the Diet.
国会の多数決だけで、憲法を改めることはできない。
Any constitutional amendment must first be initiated through a vote of two-thirds or more of all members of each house in the Diet and then approved by the public with a majority vote in a special referendum. This procedure is stipulated in Article 96 of the Constitution.
憲法を改正するには、衆参両院の３分の２以上の賛成で発議し、国民投票で過半数の承認を得なければならない。憲法９６条が定める手続きだ。
Last spring, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began a political campaign to make it easier to rewrite the Constitution by easing this procedure, but later gave up the idea.
安倍首相は昨春、この手続きを緩めようとして断念した。
Abe’s attempt was foiled by opposition expressed by many Japanese who became aware of its dangerous implications. They realized that if the government is allowed to change the Constitution at will, the all-important principles of constitutionalism, which restrict the power of government, would be violated.
時の政権の意向だけで憲法が変えられては、権力にしばりをかける立憲主義が侵される。こう気づいた多くの国民が、反対の声を上げたからだ。
Abe is now seeking to tamper with the supreme law in a different way.
安倍首相は、今年は違うやり方で、再び憲法に手をつけようとしている。
Instead of pursuing a change in a constitutional provision, the prime minister is working to enable Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense through a Cabinet decision to change the government’s interpretation of the Constitution regarding the issue. The government’s traditional position has been that Japan has the right to collective self-defense, but is banned by the Constitution from exercising that right.
条文はいじらない。かわりに９条の解釈を変更する閣議決定によって、「行使できない」としてきた集団的自衛権を使えるようにするという。
This way, even a Diet vote is not needed to make the policy change, which raises some serious constitutional questions.
これだと国会の議決さえ必要ない。
What would be the consequences of that step? The pacifist ideal of the Constitution would lose its spirit even if it remains alive in form.
その結果どうなるか。日本国憲法の平和主義は形としては残っても、その魂が奪われることになるのは明らかだ。
COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE MEANS DEFENDING ALLIES
■本質は他国の防衛
Some policymakers within the government have proposed to make it clear that Japan’s exercise of its right to collective self-defense would be limited to the minimum necessary--only in areas surrounding Japan and in situations where it is needed to ensure the nation’s existence.
政権内ではこんな議論がされている。集団的自衛権の行使は日本周辺で「わが国の存立を全うする」ための必要最小限に限る。
They argue that the 1959 Supreme Court ruling over the so-called Sunagawa Incident, which concerned the constitutionality of the presence of U.S. forces in Japan, didn’t ban Japan from using its right to collective self-defense. The ruling actually said, “It is indisputable that, as an act of exercising its proper powers as a nation, Japan is allowed to take self-defense measures that are necessary for maintaining its own peace and security and ensuring its existence.”
それは５９年の砂川事件の最高裁判決も認めている――。
These policymakers are making the case for allowing Japan limited use of its right to collective self-defense.
いわゆる「限定容認論」だ。
One example often cited in this argument is a situation in which a U.S. warship comes under attack in waters near Japan. Abe and other proponents of the proposal ask whether it is acceptable that the Self-Defense Forces are not allowed to come to rescue when a U.S. naval vessel operating to defend Japan comes under attack. They warn that the SDF’s failure to help a U.S. ship in such a situation would mean an end to Japan’s security alliance with the United States.
しばしば例示されるのは、日本近海での米艦防護だ。首相らは日本を守るため警戒中の米艦が襲われた時、自衛隊が救えなくていいのかと問う。それでは日米同盟は終わる、とも。
But many people in and outside the government believe the SDF can respond to such cases as part of Japan’s exercise of its right to individual self-defense or its police authority.
しかし、これは日本の個別的自衛権や警察権で対応できるとの見解が政府内外に根強い。
In other words, this problem can be solved without treating it as the constitutional issue of collective self-defense. There is no need to use a distorted interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling over the Sunagawa Incident, which only acknowledged Japan’s right to individual self-defense, as a tool to promote the case for collective self-defense.
ことさら集団的自衛権という憲法の問題にしなくても、解決できるということだ。日本の個別的自衛権を認めたに過ぎない砂川判決を、ねじ曲げて援用する必要もない。
A decision to allow Japan to use its right to collective self-defense, even if the use is limited to the minimum necessary, would amount to a total about-face on the traditional security policy.
仮に集団的自衛権の行使を認めれば、どんなに必要最小限だといっても、これまでの政策から百八十度の転換となる。
Collective self-defense, by nature, involves the defense of other countries. But a small leak can eventually sink a great ship.
集団的自衛権の本質は、他国の防衛という点にある。アリの一穴は必ず広がる。
It is difficult to impose an effective restriction on Japan’s use of its military power that is clearer than the current rule that Japan can only use armed force when it is directly attacked.
「日本が攻撃された時だけ武力を行使する」という以上に明確な歯止めを設けることは困難だ。
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s draft proposal to revise the Constitution calls for making the SDF full-fledged national defense forces that can take part in collective self-defense operations.
自民党の憲法改正草案は、自衛隊を集団的自衛権も行使できる「国防軍」にするという。
What the Abe administration is trying to achieve is realizing this proposal without making an amendment to the Constitution through the established formal procedure.
安倍政権がやろうとしていることは、憲法を変えずにこれを実現しようというに等しい。
The administration is making an outrageous attempt to push through an effective constitutional amendment based on a government proposal merely through discussions within the ruling camp.
政府が方針を決め、与党協議だけで実質的な改憲をしてしまおうという乱暴さ。
Why is the Abe administration getting away with such unacceptable behavior?
なぜ、こんなことがまかり通ろうとしているのか。
NO EFFECTIVE CHECKS ON GOVERNMENT BY LEGISLATURE
■行政府への抑止なく
The most obvious factor behind this distressing political landscape is the inability of the Diet to do its job properly. It is failing to perform its role of clarifying important policy issues through discussions in order to provoke meaningful public debate.
真っ先に目につくのは国会の無力だ。論争によって問題点を明らかにし、世論を喚起する。この役割が果たせていない。
Abe has been making little effort to offer serious answers to questions from opposition parties in the Diet, and the wretchedly weakened opposition has been letting him get away with it.
対立する政党の質問にまともに答えようとしない首相。それを許してしまう野党の弱さは、目を覆うばかりだ。
Some LDP lawmakers who initially voiced skepticism about Abe’s initiative have quickly become extremely quiet, apparently after the prime minister started signaling the possibility of a Cabinet and party leadership reshuffle.
自民党内にあった慎重論も、内閣改造や党人事がちらついたのか、またたく間にしぼんだ。
The nation’s legislature is totally impotent to monitor and check the behavior of the administration in any effective way to prevent its dangerous moves.
立法府から行政府への監視や抑止がまるで利かない現状。
What would happen if, to top it all, the constitutional restriction on Japan’s use of its military capabilities is removed?
そのうえ、憲法の歯止めがなくなればどうなるか。
Japan has been following U.S. military policy. It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to foresee the scope of SDF operations expanding beyond the “minimum necessary” under pressure from Washington.
米国の軍事政策に追従し続けてきた日本だ。米国の要請に押され自衛隊の活動が「必要最小限」を超えるのは想像に難くない。
In 2003, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi supported U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to declare war on Iraq and, in response to a U.S. request, sent SDF troops to the Middle East to support reconstruction efforts.
０３年のイラク戦争で、小泉首相はブッシュ大統領の開戦の決断を支持し、自衛隊を復興支援に派遣した。
Koizumi justified his decisions simply by repeating that supporting the United States was in Japan’s best interest. The Koizumi administration showed no signs of making objective, cool-headed assessments of the situation.
小泉氏の理屈は「米国支持が国益にかなう」の一点張り。情勢を客観的に判断する姿勢は見えなかった。
Abe has established the National Security Council. But the minutes of its meetings have not been published, and the newly enacted state secrets protection law is likely to allow the government to keep the public in the dark about the process of making policy decisions to mobilize the SDF.
安倍首相は国家安全保障会議を発足させた。だが、議事録は公開されず、特定秘密保護法によって自衛隊を動かす政策決定過程は闇に閉ざされそうだ。
Under these circumstances, would the government be able to make the right decision should it be asked to send SDF troops to battlefields of another U.S.-led war? Would the Diet and the public be able to stop such a deployment of the SDF?
こんな体制のもと、第二のイラク戦争への参加を求められたら、政府は正しい判断を下せるのか。国会や国民がそれを止めることができるのか。
DON'T TAKE CONSTITUTION FROM THE PEOPLE
■憲法を取り上げるな
Some administration officials are saying the government should try to win the support of as many members of the public as possible for the initiative, which would allow the government to mobilize SDF troops for participation in collective self-defense operations.
「自衛隊員に出動命令を出すからには、一人でも多くの国民の理解を得たい」。政権の中からはこんな声が聞こえる。
If the government insists on making it possible for Japan to exercise its right to collective self-defense, there is only one path it should take.
集団的自衛権の行使をどうしても認めたいというのならば、とるべき道はひとつしかない。
It should present a draft amendment to the Constitution to take the step and follow the formal procedure--initiating the amendment through a vote of a two-thirds majority in each house of the Diet and then getting it approved by the people with a majority vote at a special referendum.
そのための憲法改正案を示し、衆参両院の３分の２の賛成と国民投票での過半数の承認を得ることだ。
To be fair, the security situation in East Asia is certainly becoming dangerous due to North Korea’s development of nuclear arms and China’s aggressive military buildup. We can understand that the government is pursuing this initiative out of a desire to ensure Japan’s security.
北朝鮮の核開発や中国の軍備増強などで、東アジアの安全保障環境は厳しくなっている。いまの議論が、日本の安全を確実にしたいという思いからきていることはわかる。
If so, the government should first start debate on legislative moves needed to deal with specific issues, instead of immediately touching the Constitution.
ならば一足飛びに憲法にふれるのでなく、個々の案件に必要な法整備は何かという点から議論を重ねるべきではないか。
Even if the government’s proposal is reasonable from the viewpoints of policy and military needs, that doesn’t justify distorting key constitutional principles through a change in the government’s interpretation of them.
仮に政策的、軍事的合理性があったとしても、解釈変更で憲法をねじ曲げていいという理由にはならない。
The way the Abe administration is pursuing this controversial initiative is totally inconsistent with the prime minister’s pledge to put the Constitution back in the hands of the people. Instead, it is tantamount to taking the Constitution away from the public.
いまの政権のやり方は、首相が唱える「憲法を国民の手に取り戻す」どころか、「憲法を国民から取り上げる」ことにほかならない。
--The Asahi Shimbun, May 3
【このカテゴリーの最新記事】
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
この記事へのコメント
コメントを書く