(Tokyo Shimbun: July 15, 2015 – p. 6)
The following is the gist of interpellations at the House of Representatives special committee on the security bills:
Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi (Liberal Democratic Party): The counterproposals submitted by the Japan Innovation Party (JIP) are too focused on the defense of Japan and fall short on securing the U.S.’s involvement in Japan’s defense.
Masato Imai (JIP, a co-sponsor of the counterproposals): Japan will support the U.S. forces in an armed attack crisis situation or a contingency in Japan’s periphery. Our proposals adequately define what actions are possible within the bounds of the Constitution.
Yasushi Adachi (JIP): Is there a difference between the JIP’s and the government’s proposals in terms of what actions are possible?
Defense Minister Gen Nakatani: At the stage where an armed attack on Japan is probable, it will be possible to protect ships in certain cases under the government’s proposals but not under the JIP’s proposals.
Adachi: Committee members from the Democratic Party of Japan and the Japanese Communist Party are absent today.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga: It is also a very important duty of politicians to participate in Diet deliberations and convey their party’s thinking to the people. Thanks to the JIP’s counterproposals, the people will deepen their understanding by comparing them with the government’s proposals.
Hirofumi Yoshimura (JIP): A request from the attacked country is not being set as a legal requirement for the exercise of the right to collective self-defense.
Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida: It is a matter of course under international law that a request from or the consent of the attacked country is required for the exercise of the collective defense right. There is no need to have a legal provision on this. The cabinet resolution in July last year stipulates observance of international law in the use of force.