[Provisional Translation]

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: We will now begin the press conference by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
 
The Prime Minister will make an opening statement, and then we will take questions from you. Prime Minister, your statement please.

Opening Statement by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

PRIME MINISTER ABE: The Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security submitted their report today. The report is the product of nearly two and a half years of examination and discussion carried out by experts in diplomacy, security, and laws. At the outset, I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to all of the members of the Advisory Panel, including Chairman Yanai and Deputy Chairman Kitaoka, for their extensive insight and contributions. Today, I would like to directly explain to the people of Japan the basic orientation on how we will deliberate on this matter, following the receipt of this report.

Having received this report, we must think about what we must do to secure our lives and to ensure that we can live in peace. Let me explain by giving specific examples.

Nowadays, 1.5 million Japanese people live overseas and another 18 million travel abroad annually. Suppose a conflict suddenly arises in their destinations. Suppose also that attack is made in the sea near Japan, right when Japanese people who are escaping from where the conflict had occurred are being rescued and transported by our ally, the United States, which has the necessary capabilities to do so. Even in such cases, unless the Japanese nationals themselves were attacked, the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) could not defend the U.S. vessels transporting the Japanese nationals. This is the current constitutional interpretation.

Last November, I gave a prayer at the memorials to the late Mr. Atsuhito Nakata and the late Police Superintendent Mr. Haruyuki Takada, who lost their lives in the line of duty for the peace of Cambodia. More than 20 years have passed since this tragic event, and currently, in Asia and Africa, many young Japanese nationals are engaged in activities for the peace and development of the regions through volunteer work and other means. Like these young people, there are also people engaged in medical activities. In the same areas, there are probably also the United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping operations (PKO) personnel conducting PKO activities in cooperation. However, even if such people were to suddenly be attacked by armed groups, the JSDF conducting missions in that region or country cannot rescue them. Even if the forces of other countries working hard with the JSDF for peace-building request the JSDF to rescue them, the JSDF has no choice but to abandon them. That is the reality.

It could be you, your child, or your grandchild out there. Does it really make sense that there is nothing that the Japanese Government or I who assume the responsibility to secure  the lives of these people could do? As Prime Minister, surely it should be my responsibility to secure the lives of the people under any circumstances. I simply cannot believe that the Constitution of Japan, which was created in the hopes of bringing happiness to the people, require me to renounce my responsibility to secure the lives of the people in such situations.

Such situations are not mere theory. As is reported every day in the news, even at this very moment, a conflict between states continues in the South China Sea due to unilateral actions backed by coercion. This is not somebody else’s problem. In the East China Sea as well, there have been repeated intrusions into Japan’s territorial waters, and the Japan Coast Guard and JSDF continue to patrol the sea around-the-clock with a high sense of vigilance.

The majority of Japanese territory falls within the range of North Korea’s missiles. Tokyo, Osaka, and your home towns are no exception. Furthermore, North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, cyber-attacks and other threats move cross the border threats instantly. This does not only apply to Japan. It is no longer possible for any one nation to secure its own peace only by itself. This understanding is shared around the world. This is precisely why, under the banner of “Proactive Contribution to Peace,” I made clear that Japan’s position is to contribute even more proactively in ensuring peace and stability of the world and fundamental values, such as freedom of navigation and its overflight, in cooperation with the international community, and I have been working towards this end.

The policy of “Proactive Contribution to Peace” has gained strong support from many, including of course our ally, the United States, as well as the European countries I was visiting until last week, and our friends in Asia, including the ASEAN countries. The world has high expectations for the role Japan would play. The views in today’s reports were made from the perspective of resolutely securing the lives and livelihood of its  nationals under any circumstances.

The Government and ruling parties will be further examining this matter based on specific cases, and will develop a legal system that will allow for seamless responses to secure the lives and livelihood of the Japanese nationals. We will examine legislative measures that are also permissible under the constitutional interpretation to date. For example, there may be an infringement that does not amount to an armed attack, or an armed group pretending to be fishermen may land on a remote Japanese island. We will further strengthen our responses to such so-called “gray zone situations.” In addition, Japan will further contribute to the peace and stability of the international community, including through PKOs and logistics support. In addition to such measures we must be fully ready for situations that could happen in reality. We must hold further reviews to judge whether the legislation could be developed sufficiently to secure the lives and livelihood of its nationals under the constitutional interpretation to date.

Such considerations are misunderstood to mean that Japan will again become a country that would go into war. However, that is absolutely not the case. We will continue to uphold the pacifism that is set out in the Constitution of Japan. Let me make that very clear. In fact, I perceive that precisely by having the ability to respond to every possible situation and developing legal system which enables such responses, deterrence will be enhanced, and thus conflict will be prevented and Japan’s embroilment in war will be eliminated.

The Advisory Panel’s report presents two different views.

The one view is that, regardless of whether it is the right of individual or collective self-defense, the Constitution does not prohibit the use of force for the purpose of self-defense, and furthermore, the Constitution does not impose any restrictions on activities that are consistent with international law such as participation in collective security measures of the U.N However, this view does not make logical consistency with the Government’s constitutional interpretation to date. I do not deem that the Constitution allows for all such operations. Accordingly, the Government cannot adopt this view or the so-called “Ashida Amendment” theory.

 It will remain the case that the JSDF will never participate in such warfare as the Gulf War or Iraq War for the purpose of the use of force.

The other view is that the limited exercise of the right of collective self-defense is permissible in such limited situation which has the potential to significantly affect the security of Japan. This view bears in mind the existing basic position of the Government, which is that the Government must give supreme consideration to the people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the purpose of the Preamble and Article 13 of the Constitution is considered, the Constitution does not prohibit the Government from taking measures of self-defense necessary to maintain Japan’s peace and security and to ensure its survival. The Constitution permits the use of force to the minimum extent necessary to this end. The Government will proceed with further examinations of this view.

In proceeding with the measures to develop a legal system which enables seamless responses, we will examine review whether it will be possible to develop the necessary domestic legislation under the constitutional interpretation to date or if the constitutional interpretation must be changed for the development of certain pieces of domestic legislation, and will consider what constitutional interpretation would be appropriate. The Government will proceed with these reviews while taking into account the opinions of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau and begin consultations among the ruling parties. If based on the consultations among the ruling parties we judge that it is necessary to change the constitutional interpretation, then we will make a Cabinet Decision on the basic orientation on the legislative amendments as well as on the matter of constitutional interpretation. This will be to secure the lives and livelihood of its nationals.

We will also hold debates at the Diet and continue to make efforts to gain the understanding of the people. We will hold thorough discussions, and as soon as the preparations are complete, we will submit the necessary bills to the Diet.

For over nearly 70 years since the end of World War II, Japan has consistently followed the path of a peace-loving nation. We will continue not to deviate from this path. However, we cannot ensure that we can live in peace simply by saying that we are a peace-loving nation. We may suddenly find our peaceful lives disrupted by a crisis. Who can say for sure that this will not happen? Such assurances are nowhere to be found nowadays, with terrorists lurking around the world. I believe that  we and the Government must all face up to this reality head-on.

To secure our lives and to ensure that we can live in peace, Japan must regularly make seamless preparations to be able to respond to every possible situation, while also deepening cooperation with relevant countries. This will enhance deterrence and avoid Japan’s embroilment in wars. I am convinced that, as Prime Minister, it is my responsibility to fully secure the lives of Japanese people in situations I discussed moments ago.

I sincerely ask for the understanding of the people as we proceed with our examinations. I myself will continue to take every opportunity to provide careful explanations.

I would like to reiterate that the Japanese people attempting to flee from a country at war could be fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, or children. As things stand, we would not be able to defend any U.S. vessel transporting these people. And we would not be able to protect the young Japanese people who are truly working hard for world peace, even if the JSDF, who are capable of doing so, were available. Conversely, the forces of other countries, who are working hard with JSDF, would come to the aid. We, however, would have to refuse their request for rescue and abandon them. I am sure the international community would be shocked.

I believe that, I, as Prime Minister, and the Japanese Government, who are tasked with the responsibility to secure the lives of Japanese nationals, have the duty to examine such issues.

I will end my opening statement here.      

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: We will now open the floor to your questions. Please raise your hand if you would like to ask a question. After I call on you, please state your name and affiliation before asking your question.

I would like to first take a question from a coordinator of the press club.

Yes, please go ahead.

REPORTER (JOJIMA, TOKYO SHIMBUN): You mentioned changes to the constitutional interpretation. In my opinion, if this Government were to change the constitutional interpretation, which was adhered to by past Governments, it would constitute denial of constitutionalism, where the Constitution governs the Government’s policymaking. Do you believe that it causes no problems when a Government changes the constitutional interpretation at its own discretion?

You emphasized that Japan will never again become a war waging country. However, if we allow Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense, we cannot deny the possibility that the SDF will participate in the wars of other countries. Is this really what it means to make the proactive contributions to peace that you seek?

PRIME MINISTER ABE: As I just explained, currently, Japan would perhaps not be able to rescue the children, mothers and many other Japanese people on the ship, even in the situation shown here. Japan is unable to protect these people. I am questioning if this is really acceptable despite Japan being capable of doing so.

Needless to say, we must exercise political power based upon constitutionalism. With this in mind, I would like everyone to consider if it is acceptable for us policymakers to turn a blind eye from a reality in which Japan is unable to protect its own people.

The Constitution recognizes our rights to pursue happiness and life, and the Government is responsible for protecting these rights. I cannot possibly believe that the Constitution demands us to abandon that responsibility.

I would like everyone watching this press conference to know that they themselves, their children, or their grandchildren could find themselves in this situation.

This debate is a very real and pressing issue that is relevant to each and every Japanese people. The majority of Japan falls within the range of North Korea’s missiles. In light of significant changes in the security environment surrounding Japan such as this, we have worked on this issue over a period of seven years. We believe that it surely is our responsibility to protect the lives and livelihoods of the people under any circumstances. We will maintain this perspective as we further study this matter.

Meanwhile, I do not believe that the Constitution of Japan permits all activities even if they are for self-defense or the right of collective self-defense. As I said, it will remain the case that the JSDF will never participate in warfare in foreign countries for the purpose of the use of force. We will continue to uphold the pacifism that is set out in the Constitution of Japan.

Some argue that our discussion on the right of collective self-defense will result in Japan becoming embroiled in the wars of other countries. There appeared to be a rise of such arguments at the time of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty revision in the 1960s. However, the focus of the opposition was against the possibility of Japan becoming embroiled in the wars of other countries, rather than the revision of the Treaty itself. Many repeatedly argued that Japan would find itself caught in wars if the Treaty was revised, but after 50 years, has it ever caused a problem? It is now commonly understood by Japanese people that the revision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty instead enhanced the deterrence capacity of Japan, and the presence of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region has helped establish peace more firmly in the region. What we are trying to do now is in fact to further enhance Japan’s deterrence capacity, and we must discuss this matter further with a determination to do everything we can to protect the lives of Japanese people. I am convinced that we are responsible for maintaining an active mindset; asking ourselves how we can protect the lives of Japanese people, rather than maintaining a passive mindset that would have us concerned about our involvement in wars.

I am aware that I am repeating myself but I believe that Japan is less likely to be drawn into wars as the country’s deterrence capacity is enhanced.

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: I would like to take another question from a coordinator of the press club.

REPORTER (UTSUMI, KYODO NEWS): You asked the ruling parties to discuss whether changing the constitutional interpretation is appropriate after receiving the report from the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security, which you established yourself. Some argue that the selection of panel members was biased and that the panel therefore lacks neutrality. What are your thoughts on this?

Furthermore, New Komeito said that the right of collective self-defense was not included in the coalition agreement between the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito and the right of collective self-defense was not a major point of contention during the lead up to the House of Representatives election in December 2012 and the House of Councillors election in July 2013. Do you plan to dissolve the House of Representatives and take the matter to the polls before considering major changes to security policy?

PRIME MINISTER ABE: The individuals I appointed to the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security are people who have earnestly studied these issues. I appointed people who have earnestly studied these issues, and seriously considered how we can protect the lives of Japanese people. I believe that the report the panel submitted presents very insightful and realistic discussion on what must be done to protect the lives and livelihoods of Japanese people in every possible situation with consideration of the changes in our security environment.

Considering those, we decided not to discuss everything included in the report.

In relation to the matter of the elections, those who listened to my speeches in the lead up to the House of Councilors and House of Representatives elections would know that I promised to fully protect the lives and assets of Japanese people, as well as our territory and the territorial waters of Japan. I did in fact say that I am determined to fulfill my responsibility under any circumstances whatsoever. I am certain that discussions on this matter will help us put into action the public pledges I made.

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: Next, I would like to take questions from someone other than the coordinators of the press club.

Mr. Kawakami, please.

REPORTER (KAWAKAMI, YOMIURI SHIMBUN): I understand that the Japanese Government has already attempted to garner U.S. support for initiatives aimed at altering the constitutional interpretation with regard to the right of self-defense. You also presented this matter to leaders of Asian and European countries while on official visits. Could you tell us specifically what reactions you received?

Moreover, making changes to the constitutional interpretation requires the understanding of the public, New Komeito and the LDP, so can you tell us the time frame you have in mind for advancing discussions? 

PRIME MINISTER ABE: Last year, I visited the ten ASEAN countries. During my visits, I explained my efforts to seek a change in the constitutional interpretation with regard to the right of collective self-defense, among other matters, showing these examples. I believe that all countries showed understanding and support.

I also recently visited Europe and gave detailed explanations there as well. All the countries I visited showed support.

During my speech at NATO headquarters, I talked about Japan’s responsibility to collective security including changes to the constitutional interpretation with regard to the right of collective self-defense. I believe that many countries showed strong support.

A delegate from one country asked a question about Article 9 of the Constitution. The delegate said in relation to the interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution that it is wonderful that Japan is considering changes in the interpretation in order to protect the lives of the Japanese people, and to establish peace in the region and the wider international community. I believe that this shows support for Japan’s efforts to achieve significant changes.

First and foremost, international cooperation is important, so Japan will make proactive contributions and I will continue to provide thorough explanations for Japan’s security policies by visiting other countries.

As for a schedule, we do not have any predetermined deadline in mind. We will advance Government discussions on this matter while taking into account the opinions of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. We will then commence study by the Government and discussion by the ruling parties. If it is deemed necessary to change the constitutional interpretation as a result of the discussion by the ruling parties, we will set out our basic orientation for the revision of legislation and seek to have this approved as a Cabinet Decision, in order to protect the lives and livelihoods of the Japanese people.

We will also hold debates at the Diet and continue to make efforts to obtain the understanding of the people. We will hold thorough discussions, and as soon as the preparations are complete, we will submit the necessary bills to the Diet.

When doing so, we will not base our discussions on abstract or conceptual logic; rather we will conduct discussions drawing from specific individual cases as we seek public understanding.

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: We will now take the next question. Ms. Sekiguchi, please.

REPORTER (SEKIGUCHI, DOW JONES): Thank you for taking my question.

Recently, in the South China Sea, relations between China and countries such as Viet Nam and the Philippines have been growing increasingly tense. Earlier you said that the situation in the South China Sea is not somebody else’s problem. How do you think approval of the right of collective self-defense will change Japan’s role and contribution in the region?

PRIME MINISTER ABE: Japan has consistently followed the path of a peace-loving nation. We will continue not to deviate from this path. Japan has constantly valued peaceful resolution of conflicts. The rule of law, and freedom of airspace and navigation must be respected. Japan will not tolerate any attempt to forcibly change the status quo.

What the Government is going to discuss is exactly such a situation. The question is whether or not it is acceptable that Japan is unable to do anything despite putting the lives of Japanese people at risk when such a situation arises.

Moreover, some argue that the Government’s discussion regarding changes in constitutional interpretation may result in increased military expenditure and enhanced military capabilities. However, this argument misses the point. The outline for the next five years as stipulated in the Mid-Term Defense Program has already gained Diet approval and the outline will not change.

Various situations could arise in relation to national security, but as I just said, what the Government will discuss is such a situation.

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: Next question, please. Mr. Nanao, please.

REPORTER (NANAO, NICONICO VIDEO): Thank you for taking my question.

I understand that the Government has put together detailed examples of potential circumstances, including the examples you gave at the beginning of the press conference, in preparation for changes in constitutional interpretation and the development of relevant legislation, including the approval of the right of collective self-defense. How does the Government intend to respond if something unexpected occurs?

PRIME MINISTER ABE: As we address issues concerning national security, it is not easy to anticipate all possible events and situations that may arise in the future.

Until now, many people have argued that nothing we cannot predict will occur. In fact, we have long turned our eyes away from the examples I provided. In other words, we have turned our eyes away telling ourselves that something like that could never happen.
In my position as Prime Minister, I am responsible for protecting the lives of Japanese people in every possible situation. I can never use the excuse that the situation was unpredictable. It is important that we remain as prepared as possible so that we can protect the lives and livelihoods of the Japanese people and to seamlessly respond to every possible circumstance.

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: We will now take one last question.

Mr. Yoshino, please.

REPORTER (YOSHINO, TV ASAHI): I would like to ask a question concerning the report by the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security. You just said that you will not discuss everything included in the report and that you will advance discussions drawing from each example situation. The report by the Advisory Panel includes a number of example situations, so could you tell us which ones you will look at and which ones you will not look at, as well as the reasons for your decisions?

PRIME MINISTER ABE: The Advisory Panel’s report presents two different views.

The one view is that, notwithstanding whether it is the right of individual or collective self-defense, the Constitution does not prohibit the use of force for the purpose of self-defense, and furthermore, participation in collective security measures of the U.N., which are lawful activities under international law, is not subject to constitutional restrictions. However, this view does not logically conform to the Government’s constitutional interpretation to date. I do not deem that the Constitution allows for all such operations. Accordingly, the Government cannot adopt this view or the so-called “Ashida Amendment” theory, which suggests that we are free to exercise the right of self-defense.

The other view is that the Constitution permits the limited exercise of the right of collective self-defense if a situation could pose a serious impact on the security of Japan. The Government will further study this view.

CABINET PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECRETARY: We are now out of time and I would like to bring this press conference to a close. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

PRIME MINISTER ABE: Thank you very much.