Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:17:29.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Japan's Parliamentary Confrontation on the Post-Cold War National Security Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

TOMOHITO SHINODA
TOMOHITO SHINODA*
Affiliation:
International University of Japan, Niigata, Japantshinoda@iuj.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the fall 2007 Diet session, the largest opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) showed strong opposition against the government's proposal to continue the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) refueling operations to support maritime inspections in the Indian Ocean. In order to evaluate this parliamentary confrontation, the article compares the handling of this issue with the six past major post-Cold War national security policies. The DPJ constantly presented its own legislative proposals in order to participate in Diet deliberation. DPJ's counter proposals, however, were not always cooperative with the government. This different attitude by the DPJ could not be explained by the public and media opinions or the position of the supporting organization but by DPJ's political calculation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 267 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Among the recent studies are: Samuels, Richard, Securing Japan: Tokyo's Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Pyle, Kenneth B., Japan Rising: The Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose (New York: A Century Foundation Book, 2007)Google Scholar; Oros, Andrew, Normalizing Japan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Shinoda, Tomohito, Koizumi Diplomacy: Japan's Kantei Approach to Foreign and Defense Affairs (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.), Rethinking Japanese Security: Internal and External Dimensions (London: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar; and Kliman, Daniel M., Japan's Security Strategy in the Post 9/11 World: Embracing a New Realpolitik (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2006)Google Scholar. In Japanese language are Takagkazu, Kuriyama, Nichibei Domei: Hyoryu kara no Dakkyaku (Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shimbun-sha, 1997)Google Scholar; Masahiro, Akiyama, Nichibei no Senryaku Taiwa ga Hajimatta (Tokyo: Aki Shobo, 2002)Google Scholar; and Tomohito, Shinoda, Reisengo no Nihon Gaiko: Anzen Hosho Seisaku no Kokunai Seiji Katei (Kyoto: Mineruva Shobo, 2007)Google Scholar.

2 Robert Pekkanen and Ellis S. Krause, ‘Japan's ‘Coalition of the Willing’ on Security Policies’, Orbis, (Summer 2005): 429–44.

3 The number of Cabinet bills submitted to the Diet has decreased to about 100 since the late 1970s. Until the mid-1950s, it counted more than 200. Iwai Tomoaki explains the decrease as a sign of a more mature legal system. Tomoaki, Iwai, Rippo Katei [The legislative process] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppan-kai, 1988), pp. 86–9Google Scholar. The total number of the government-sponsored bills between May 1947 and August 2007 is 9,891. Among them, 7,968 bills passed the Diet with the passage rate of 80.6%. Between 2001 and August 2007, 883 such bills were submitted, and 821 of them passed with the passage rate of 93.0%.

4 Mike Masato Mochizuki, ‘Managing and Influencing the Japanese Legislative Process: The Role of Parties and the National Diet’, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1981, p. 48.

5 Iwai, Rippo Katei, p. 116.

6 Stokes, Donald E., ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’, The American Political Science Review, 57 (2) (June 1963): 368–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Stokes, Donald E., ‘Valence Politics’, in Kavanagh, Dennis (ed.), Electoral Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 143Google Scholar.

8 Budge, Ian, ‘Theory and measurement of Party Policy Positions’, in Budge, Ian et al. , Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimate for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 75–90Google Scholar.

9 The study by Ian Budge and others based on extensive data on party preferences in 24 democratic nations suggests national defense and protectionism are the only two policy areas which clearly split the pro and the con stances of political parties. Ibid., p. 83.

10 Stokes, ‘Valence Politics’, p. 143.

11 Stokes, ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’, p. 372.

12 Carter, Neil, ‘Party Politicization of the Environment in Britain’, Party Politics, 12 (6) (2006): p. 750CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Armacost, Michael, Friends or Rivals? (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 118Google Scholar.

14 For example, see Pekkanen and Krause, ‘Japan's ‘Coalition of the Willing’ on Security Policies’, and Kliman, Japan's Security Strategy in the Post-9/11 World.

15 First, it would require Diet approval of the action guideline to dispatch the SDF, but did not require prior approval. In the process of the 2001 anti-terrorism legislation, the DPJ demanded prior approval as a way to strengthen the role of the Diet, and was expected to do the same for this legislation. Second, the lifespan of the legislation was four years, but the Koizumi government signaled that it was willing to cut this to two years. Third, the legislation would allow ground transportation of munitions to the SDF, which was prohibited under the 2001 anti-terrorism legislation. The DPJ was expected to demand that the government prohibit ground transportation. Fourth, the legislation was legally based on UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, 1441 and 1483. Having the first three resolutions as a legal base, the legislation would recognize the legitimacy of the American attack on Iraq. The DPJ would have liked to dispatch the SDF based solely on resolution 1483, in which the UN requested its member states to contribute to Iraq's reconstruction without recognizing such legitimacy.

16 The only time when this constitutional clause was used was 1951 in order to enact the motor boat race law to override the rejection by the upper house.

17 For example, Komeito's policy committee chairman Tetsuo Sato stated at the budget meeting on 9 October 2007: ‘I have a request to Mr prime minister. The overseas dispatch of the SDF by its importance and nature would inevitably require us to establish a political environment in which most of the people support it. We should not dispatch it with one of the two houses opposing to it.’ http://www.shugiin.go.jp/index.nsf/html/index_kaigiroku.htm (25 February 2008)

18 Ozawa Ichiro, ‘Imakoso Kokusai Anzen Hosho no Gensoku Kakuritsu wo [Now we need to establish a principle of international Security]’, Sekai (November 2007): 148–53.

19 This result may be distorted as the poll asked ‘which do you think better, non-military contribution or the SDF dispatch by revising the Constitution and the SDF Law’. This question excluded an option to dispatch the SDF for non-military purposes. Asahi Shimbun, 1 October 1990.

20 Asahi Shimbun, 6 November 1990.

21 Fifty-six percent of the public supported the government decision compared to 30% opposing Asahi Shimbun, 24 April 1991.

22 Asahi Shimbun, 10 November 1991.

23 During the Diet deliberation of the guidelines legislation, Asahi Shimbun conducted an opinion poll. While 60% of the respondents expressed their interest in the legislation, the support rate was only 37%, compared to 43% opposed. Asahi Shimbun, 19 March 1999. During the Diet deliberation of the Iraq legislation, 46% of the respondents supported the legislation, while 43% opposed. Asahi Shimbun, 1 July 2003.

24 Except for a poll conducted by Asahi Shimbun (39% for support and 44% for opposition, October 16, 2007), other opinion polls showed strong support for the legislation by more than ten point margins. For example, a Yomiuri Shimbun poll (October 10, 2007) showed that 49% supported it while 37% opposed. Another poll by Sankei Shimbun (September 30, 2007) recorded a majority support of 51% with 40% of opposition. A Nihon Keizai Shimbun poll (September 27, 2007) also turned out to have 47% of support and 39% of opposition.

25 Fifty-one percent of the respondents supported the anti-terrorism legislation while just 29% were opposed. Asahi Shimbun, 16 October 2001. For the emergency legislation, 48% of the respondents supported, compared with 21% of the opposition. Yomiuri Shimbun, 5 April 2003.

26 It conducted surveys on leaders in the bureaucracy, political parties, the business community, the media, labor unions, agricultural organizations, academics, consumer organizations, citizen's groups, the Buraku Liberation League and women's groups, and asked which group was the most influential in the policy making. Interestingly, all the groups, except media leaders themselves, identified the media as the most influential among them. Miyake Ichiro, Watanuki Joji, Shima Noboru, and Kabashima Ikuo, Byodo wo meguru Elito to Taiko Elito [Elites And Opposition Elites over Equality] (Sobunsha, 1985), Chapter 6.

27 See Yomiuri Shimbun, 13 October 1990; Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 22 and 28 September 1990; Asahi Shimbun, 28 September and 16 October 1990, 6 March 1991; and Mainichi Shimbun, 30 October 1990.

28 See Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 16 June 1992; Asahi Shimbun, 12 June 1992; and Mainichi Shimbun, 10 June 1992. See also Sankei Shimbun, 13 June 1992; and Yomiuri Shimbun, 12 June 1990.

29 See Sankei Shimbun, 25 May 1999; Yomiuri Shimbun, 25 May and 17 June 1999; Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 25 May 1999; Asahi Shimbun, 24 September 1997 and 9 April 1998; and Mainichi Shimbun, 25 August 1999.

30 See Sankei Keizai Shimbun, 14 September 2001; Yomiuri Shimbun, 21 September 2001; Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 20 September 2001; Mainichi Shimbun, 21 September 2001; and Asahi Shimbun, 14 September 2001.

31 See Sankei Keizai Shimbun, 17 April 2003; Yomiuri Shimbun, 21 September 2001; Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 20 September 2001; Mainichi Shimbun, 9 May 2002; and Asahi Shimbun,12 April 2003.

32 An Asahi editorial stated, ‘Presenting counter-proposals and competing with each other are what the two-party system is for. We cannot comprehend [DPJ's] attitude to refuse policy negotiation’, Asahi Shimbun, 12 January 2008. See also Sankei Keizai Shimbun, 12 January 2008; Yomiuri Shimbun, 12 January 2008; Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 12 January 2008; and Mainichi Shimbun, 12 January 2008.

33 Akira, Yamagishi, Renritsu Shikakenin (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1995), pp. 139–49Google Scholar.

34 Rengo, ‘Rengo's position on the new US–Japan guideline and the guideline legislation’, March 1999.