Roundup: Japan's opposition parties take aim at Abe's contentious security bills in lower house debate

Inter-party debates began Wednesday in Japan's lower house of parliament centered on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's aggressive push for new legislation to allow the nation's forces to exercise the right to collective self-defense, with the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) raising increasing concerns about the controversial issue.

Abe is seeking to enact a set of bills that will, in contravention of Japan's current Constitution and Supreme Law, greatly expand the scope of the nation's Self Defense Forces (SDF) to operate overseas and potentially engage in conflicts and, in doing so, reverse decades of pacifist ideology in Japan.

But the prime minister has come under harsh criticism from opposition parties who have blasted the hawkish leader for being equivocal on the potential risk to SDF personnel if they were to be deployed on defensive or combative missions under the new legislation, which would, while certainly endangering the lives of Japanese personnel, as defense analysts have attested, also rewrite Japan's entire postwar security policy.

"Politicians should not just wish for peace but take bold actions to achieve peace and the passage of the (security) bills is indispensable for ensuring the nation's security amid a severe environment in the Asia-Pacific region," Abe told the special committee on legislation for peace and security Wednesday in the lower house.

Abe standing by the three criteria that would allow for the use of collective self-defense was contested Wednesday by President of the Japan's opposition Democratic Party, Katsuya Okada.

Specifically the three criteria that would allow Japan's forces to exercise the right to collective self-defense are: If an armed attack against a foreign ally, such as the United States, occurs and as a result "threatens Japan's survival and presents a clear danger to people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," or if a contingency were to occur when there is "no other appropriate means available to prevent an attack and ensure Japan's survival and protect its people." Thirdly, the use of force must be limited to the "minimum extent necessary," the statute decrees.

Okada, in response to the prime minister's unwavering stance on the issue of collective self-defense, raised concerns about the scenario in which the SDF would be allowed to protect a U.S. ship transporting Japanese nationals by invoking the right to collective self-defense, even if this meant SDF forces entering foreign seas and territory.

"It would no doubt be possible in international waters, but whether the SDF would enter the territorial waters of another country is something we would approach with caution," Abe said, conceding, in a retraction from previous statements, that such engagements were possible.

But Abe shifted the focus to minesweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz as being the only "foreseeable" case in which he could envision the SDF being allowed to exercise the right to collective self-defense. Okada countered that there is "no difference in the use of force in another country's territory or the high seas," based on the three criteria that underpin the contentious new security bills, for the use of force under the right to collective self-defense.

Okada highlighted the fact that, in theory, the legislation could very well lead to the use of force in another country's territory and Abe's response that this would "generally not be allowed" further added to opposition parties' beliefs that the prime minister is deliberately remaining ambiguous about the specifics of the right to exercise collective self-defense for reasons that may preeminent his plans for a far broader scope of SDF operations overseas in the future.

In the latter session of the lower house committee meeting, far fiercer debate is expected, political observers said Wednesday, as the DPJ and others who have criticized Abe and members of his Cabinet and administration, such as Defense Minister Gen Nakatani who recently came under fire for stating that the new legislation would "in no way put SDF personnel at further risk" than has been the case under the nation's pacifist charter, regroup and voice a coordinated reprisal.

May 14 saw Abe's Cabinet approved a set of bills that would see geographical restrictions for SDF operations removed and permit Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense, or coming to the aid of an ally under armed attack, even if the situation did now involve Japan itself being attacked.

Abe, a known nationalist, historical revisionist and proponent of recasting Japan's military, has moved to boost the SDF's scope since he took office in 2012 and has drawn strong condemnation from the majority of the Japanese public, Japan's neighbors, who are rightly concerned that Abe is engineering a future path back to Japan's wartime militarism, and the international community, which has long respected Japan's commitment to pacifism after its wartime barbarity.

On Tuesday around 1,000 protesters, including opposition party members, voiced their opposition at the Diet building to the direction Japan is moving in under the rightwing prime minister and the current legislative deliberations, with numerous other demonstrations taking place around the country, with Abe's claims that the contended bills would never allow for Japan to be dragged into combat in the future, being regarded by the masses as a sham. Endi