英字新聞

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 6
EDITORIAL: Abe’s perverse argument for rewriting Constitution
（社説）首相の改憲論　あまりの倒錯に驚く

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been aggressively signaling his eagerness to rewrite the Constitution, which potentially includes the revision of its war-renouncing Article 9.
　安倍首相が、９条も視野に入れた憲法改正への意欲を積極的に発信している。

He is apparently hoping to pave the way for realizing his long-cherished dream ahead of the Upper House election to be held in summer. His reasoning, however, is strikingly perverse.
　夏の参院選を控え、悲願の実現に向けた地ならしをする狙いがあるようだ。だが、その論法はあまりにも倒錯している。

Seventy percent of constitutional scholars have judged that, in light of the interpretation of Article 9, the very presence of the Self-Defense Forces may violate the Constitution, the prime minister told a session of the Lower House Budget Committee. “There is a prevailing belief that this situation must be eliminated.”
　首相は衆院予算委員会で「憲法学者の７割が、９条の解釈からすれば自衛隊の存在自体が憲法違反のおそれがあると判断している」「この状況をなくすべきではないかという考え方もある」と述べた。

He made the remark in reply to a question from his close aide Tomomi Inada, chairwoman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s Policy Research Council, who said, “Constitutionalism is being emasculated somewhat by leaving Paragraph 2 of Article 9, which no longer fits reality, intact.”
　首相に近い自民党の稲田政調会長が「現実に合わない９条２項をこのままにしておくことこそ、立憲主義を空洞化する」と聞いたのに答えたものだ。

In an Asahi Shimbun survey of constitutional scholars last year, 63 percent of the respondents said they believed the presence of SDF troops either “violates” or “may violate” the Constitution. But at the same time, 98 percent of the respondents also pointed out that bills for new security legislation, which the Abe administration had submitted to the Diet after reinterpreting the Constitution to lift Japan’s self-imposed ban on the right to exercise collective self-defense, either “violate” or “may violate” the Constitution.
　確かに朝日新聞の昨年の憲法学者へのアンケートでは、６３％が自衛隊の存在は「憲法違反」「憲法違反の可能性がある」と答えている。同時に、安倍政権が集団的自衛権の行使を認める憲法解釈変更をへて国会に提出した安全保障関連法案については、９８％が「違憲」「違憲の可能性」を指摘している。

Abe’s Cabinet overrode the opposition of a majority of constitutional scholars and of the public by overturning the constitutional interpretation of successive Cabinets, which long held the view that Japan was not allowed to exercise the right to collective self-defense.
　多数の憲法学者と国民の反対を押し切り、集団的自衛権は行使できないとの歴代内閣の憲法解釈を、閣議決定だけで変えてしまったのは安倍内閣である。

The right course for Abe would be to retract the security legislation if he takes issue with the disagreement between the existence of SDF troops and the views of scholars. He should also engage in serious soul-searching if he finds fault with constitutionalism being “emasculated.”
　自衛隊の存在と学者の見解とのへだたりを問題にするのであれば、安保法制を撤回するのが筋ではないか。「立憲主義の空洞化」を批判するなら、まずは我が身を省みるべきだろう。

“Believing that even a finger should not be laid on the Constitution amounts to abandoning thought,” Abe told a lawmaker of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, who called Abe’s Diet responses into question, during a separate Diet session. “Instead of doing so, the LDP has presented a draft for amendments,” said the prime minister, who challenged the DPJ to present its own.
　首相は国会で、一連の答弁を疑問視する民主党議員に対し、「憲法に指一本触れてはならないと考えることで思考停止になる」「自民党はそうではなく、改正草案を示している」と語り、民主党にも草案を「出してみて下さいよ」と挑発した。

Abe simply steamrolled his reinterpretation of the Constitution in circumventing the process of amending it when he had his Cabinet lift the ban on the right to exercise collective self-defense. But he now proudly says his party has “presented a draft for amendments.” How can he be so opportunistic?
　集団的自衛権の行使容認では憲法改正の手続きを避け、解釈変更を押し通しながら、いまになって「改正案を示している」と胸を張る。ずいぶんと都合のいい話ではないか。

The LDP’s draft for an amended Article 9, which explicitly spells out Japan’s self-defense rights, calls for Japan to possess “Defense Forces,” an upgrade from the SDF.
　自民党の９条改正案は自衛権を明記し、「国防軍の保持」をうたう。

Abe acknowledged, in the meantime, that amending Article 9 has yet to win the support of the public. Asked which part, then, of the Constitution he wants to see amended and exactly how, the prime minister only answered, “Discussions in the Diet and among the public will find a gradual convergence.”
　一方で首相は、９条改正が国民の支持を得ている状況にないと認めている。それでは憲法のどこをどう改正するのかと問われれば、「国会や国民的な議論の中でだんだんと収斂（しゅうれん）していく」と答えるのみだ。

The Constitution is the supreme law to protect the rights of individuals, defend peace and prescribe the status of power and authority. So yes, let the Diet and the public discuss it, including whether it should be amended at all.
　憲法は、一人ひとりの人権と平和を守り、権力のあり方を規定する最高法規である。国会でも、国民的にも、改正の是非を含め論じ合えばいい。

But we never embrace an argument for rewriting the Constitution, wherein amendment has become an end in itself instead of what that amendment actually is.
　ただし、中身ではなく改正そのものが目的化した改憲論には与（くみ）することはできない。