Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary (Excerpt)

Q&As

• The issue concerning collective self-defense
• The issue of Trans-Pacific Partnership

(Abridged)

REPORTER: I have a question concerning the right of collective self-defense. In a television appearance last night, the Prime Minister referred to the judgment on the Sunagawa case. In doing so, I believe he mentioned for the first time the concept of the “partial exercise” of the right of collective self-defense, which may allow for the necessary and minimum use of force. I think that the stance of the Government until now has been to wait the report from the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security. However, this comment by the Prime Minister has taken the discussion on this issue a step forward. What are your thoughts on this matter?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: As the Advisory Panel is discussing the judgment on the Sunagawa Incident, it is my understanding that the Prime Minister referred to the incident by way of explaining the panel’s discussions. Whatever the case, the Government would like to wait for the conclusions of the Advisory Panel.

REPORTER: I have a related question. You have just stated that the Prime Minister was referring to the discussions that are ongoing in the Advisory Panel. Does that therefore mean that the Prime Minister’s comments from last night do not represent any fixed concept that he currently holds?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: In any case, once we have received the report of the Advisory Panel, the Government will then formulate a policy on this issue while referring to said report. This policy will then form the basis for various discussions among the ruling parties. Then, after we have made the necessary adjustments within the ruling parties and gained their understanding, at that stage we would like the Cabinet to approve the policy. I imagine that is the way in which matters will proceed. However, the Advisory Panel has not yet to issue a formal report. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the panel members have discussed the related issues.

REPORTER: I have a further related question. In his responses to questions in the House of Councillors last week, the Prime Minister mentioned the Sunagawa judgment, noting that to date the Government has adhered to the theory set out in the judgment. Although you just mentioned that the Prime Minister’s most recent reference to the judgment was no more than an explanation of the discussions in the Advisory Panel, Chief Representative Yamaguchi of New Komeito and others have argued that the Sunagawa judgment did not extend to the right of collective self-defense. This suggests that New Komeito has a different understanding about the Sunagawa judgment. Do you nevertheless think that this will not have much of an effect?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: The so-called “Sunagawa judgment” was a judgment by the Supreme Court of Japan in 1959 with regard to the Sunagawa Incident. The judgment noted that there is nothing in Article 9 which would deny the right of self-defense inherent in our nation as a sovereign power. It also clearly stated that it is only natural for our country, in the exercise of powers inherent in a state, to maintain peace and security, to take whatever measures may be necessary for self-defense, and to preserve its very existence. This is the view that the Government has maintained to date. It is therefore not the case that the Prime Minister is the first person to state such a view. I would very much like you to understand that it represents the existing view of the Government, which followed the judgment of the Supreme Court.

(Abridged)

REPORTER: I have a question concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. Ministerial-level discussions between Japan and the United States have started today, and I understand that there are still considerable gaps between the two sides with regard to tariffs and other matters. How will the Government be positioning these consultations and what kind of consultations will they be?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: The Prime Minister announced Japan’s participation in the TPP negotiations following the Japan-U.S. summit meeting last year in February. Japan subsequently joined the negotiations. Japan has since been engaged in these negotiations and they are at last reaching their final stages. As such, I believe both Japan and the United States have been firmly asserting what should be asserted, while seeking to conclude what can be concluded, and the negotiations are reaching the final stages.

REPORTER: I believe that President Obama’s visit to Japan could be viewed as one target date for the finalization of negotiations. How far does the Government hope to proceed before the President’s visit?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: The basic stance of the Government is to assert what should be asserted, and to thoroughly protect Japan’s national interests. I assume that Minister Amari will therefore maintain this stance as he currently engages in negotiations with United States Trade Representative Michael Froman towards a conclusion.

REPORTER: I have a related question. In this morning’s press conference, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Seko noted that the Japan-U.S. summit meeting does not represent a deadline for discussions. I think that the gist or nuance of what you just stated is slightly different.
CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: I do not consider that to be the case. There is absolutely nothing unusual about the fact that Minister Amari and Ambassador Froman are engaging in coordination in the final stages of the negotiations.

REPORTER: So there is no particular focus on finalizing negotiations by the time of the summit meeting?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: That is correct. The content of the negotiations is something that is truly related to Japan’s national interests. We are therefore not adopting the approach that it is imperative for us to finalize the negotiations by any set date. It is merely the case that negotiations are in their final stages.

REPORTER: I would like to return to the topic of the Sunagawa judgment and the right of collective self-defense. You just stated the view of the Government on this issue, but I believe that Chief Representative Yamaguchi (of New Komeito) has pointed out that the judgment did not refer to the right of collective self-defense. Does the Government believe that the Sunagawa judgment refers to the right of collective self-defense?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: First of all, the Constitution of Japan does not refer explicitly to the right to self-defense or the right to collective self-defense. Given that at the very least, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution and that it issued this judgment with regard to the Constitution, it is therefore a matter of course for it to be used as a source of reference. This is probably the reason why the Advisory Panel is discussing about the judgment.

REPORTER: Vice-President of the Liberal Democratic Party Masahiko Komura has made repeated comments that the Constitution does not refer to the right to individual or collective self-defense. Are his views and those of the Government one are the same?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: The Constitution itself does not include any explicit reference to either the right of individual self-defense or the right of collective self-defense. I believe that that is in fact the case.

REPORTER: I have a further related question. It is my understanding that following the Sunagawa judgment, the Government has recognized the right of individual self-defense, but not the right of collective self-defense. For example, I believe this is the case in interpretations issued by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, and also written answers in response to letters of questions by Diet members. How should we best understand how this interpretation came about?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: I believe that it is a fact that the assertions of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau at the time of the Sunagawa judgment have been followed through to the present day. That being said, given that the surrounding environment has changed significantly, the Advisory Panel is currently discussing whether such an interpretation is still sufficient for protecting the lives and property of the Japanese public. The Government’s basic stance, therefore, is to wait for the submission of the report from the Advisory Panel. The Government will then formulate a policy, which we hope to have approved by the Cabinet following consultations among the ruling parties.

REPORTER: I would like to seek confirmation. If that is the case, according to what you have said, it seems to me that what has changed is the situation itself, and also Government policy. However, it is not necessarily the case that the Sunagawa judgment supports the Government’s view on the right of collective self-defense. Is my understanding correct?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: The judgment on the Sunagawa Incident does not refer to the right of individual or collective self-defense. Nevertheless, what the judgment did make clear was that it is only natural for our country, in the exercise of powers inherent in a state, to take whatever measures may be necessary for self-defense.

REPORTER: I understand that point, but what I am asking is this. Even after the Sunagawa judgment, the Government’s view has been not to recognize the right of collective self-defense. Therefore, is it not the case that what has now changed is in fact the Government’s view or the situation?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SUGA: My point is that the Advisory Panel is currently discussing various concepts. Based on the report from the panel, the Government will formulate a policy. Then, following consultations among the ruling parties, we hope to make a Cabinet decision. I do not think that there is anything out of the ordinary about this process.