Let’s enjoy English 22nd

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《What is the national security in 1960s?》

…though the riot police waited for and were ready to attack them.

The students of All Japan Federation of Students’ Self Government Association 全学連, especially the ones from Tokyo, Meiji, and Chuo University took the lead and tried to break through from the south side gate of the National Diet Building to the premise. They hurt themselves at the gate repeated and broke into the premise and surged into the inside, and the dogfight was caused. Then a woman student from Tokyo university was dead…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《What is the national security in 1960s?》

The woman student from Tokyo university was dead in the middle of the confusion. She was a senior belonged to the faculty of literature in university. She attended the seminar in the morning in university and went to the demonstration from the afternoon, and met with the tragic end.

Why did the riot police allow the demonstrators to burst into the National Diet Building? Judging from our feeling at present, we may have found it strange. The time was different from at present.

Not only the…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《What is the national security in 1960s?》

Not only the equipment was insufficient but the number of people wasn’t enough then. As to the riot police, there is the ninth riot police and the Special Vehicle Unit at present, but the riot police was until the fourth one then.

The death of the woman student caused to intensify the opposition movement against the national security, the Prime Minister Kishi upset so much that he thought of dispatching the self defense force.

We call it the public security operation, and the Prime Minister…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《What is the national security in 1960s?》

…and the Prime Minister can order the self defense force to take the field so as to maintain the public order.

There is the military base on the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force at Nerima in Tokyo prefecture, and no less than twenty thousand of the Self Defense Officials stood by there.
The Prime Minister Kishi called the Secretary of Defense and said to him, making the self defense force dispatch! But the Secretary of Defense receiving the request turned it down flat and said like the next.

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《What is the national security in the 1960s?》

The self defense force has received the training fighting against the military force in other nation, but doesn’t the training putting down the demonstration by the crowd, and if shooting, some of the demonstrators may have been dead. If the self defense force kills the compatriots, it’s irretrievable.

Saying like that and the Secretary of Defense stopped the Prime Minister, but then the Prime Minister Kishi thought of the public security operation seriously then. If making the self defense…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

If making the self defense force dispatch the history in Japan must have changed greatly. The self defense force is forced to use the weapon so as to quell the demonstration, then the large amount of victims were caused, and what happened in Japan then? No one can expect it.

The riot police has strengthened its equipment significantly because it has the lesson then.

《The national security in 1960s doesn’t always opposed to the security treaty》

The large number of people yelling opposing to the national security then, did they oppose…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960s doesn’t always opposed to the security treaty》

…did they opposed to the security treaty rally? They didn’t actually. The opposition movement didn’t get excited until the Liberal Democratic Party took a vote forcibly at the House of Representatives. It was May when the situation changed completely.

In the first place, it started from the time when the Prime Minister Kishi went to America and signed the new security treaty January, but singing alone is never be effective. The people who signed referred to…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960 didn’t always oppose to the national security》

The people who signed referred to the parliament in its country and each of the parliament accepted the treaty is good, the it’s effective. We call its procedure ratification.

So the National Assembly tried to ratify it in Japan. Then the Sohyo of the labor union and the communist party and the socialist party were engaged in the opposition movement, but it lacked oomph.

The government planned to invite the President Eisenhower from America July.

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960 didn’t always oppose to the security treaty》

Eisenhower is the thirty fourth President in America. He used to be a soldier and is from the Republican Party. He took command the Normandy Landing in the World War Ⅱ as the supreme commander in the Allied Force and liberated the North France which was occupied by Germany. He served the supreme commander in the military force of NATO.

Japan planned to refer the treaty until June when Eisenhower was invited, saying it’s referred in Japan, and planned to…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960 didn’t always oppose to the security treaty》

…and planned to invite Eisenhower until then. Exactly, Japan had to make the treaty bill pass the parliament until nineteenth May so as to finish the ratification the nineteenth day June.

At first it’s deliberated at the House of Representatives , in the next it’s done at the House of Councilors, but as to the ratification on the treaty, after it’s decided at the House of Representatives, without being taking a vote within 30 days, the resolution on the House…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960 didn’t always oppose to the security treaty》

….without taking vote within thirty days, the resolution on the House of Councilors will be prioritized. We call it the superiority in the House of Councilors, and it is decided in the constitution.

The government and the Liberal and Democratic Party prepared for the worst thing and decided to take a vote until the nineteenth day May in the House of Representatives. Then the Liberal and Democratic Party had the legislative seat of two thirds in the House of…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960 didn’t always oppose to the security treaty》

Then the Liberal and Democratic Party had the legislative seat of two thirds in the House of Representatives. The biggest opposition party was the Socialist Party, and the Komeito didn’t exist, and the Democratic Socialist Party splitting from the Socialist Party was a little.
The Communist Party just had a single legislative seat, for adopting the armed struggle line in the first half of 1950s, the people in Japan repelled it, so its influence decreased so much.

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960 didn’t always oppose to the security treaty》

The Liberal and Democratic Party took a vote forcibly at the special committee of the national security on the nineteenth day May in the midnight. In the next holding the plenary session, and taking a vote forcibly again, running into the next day, giving the green light to the new security treaty.

The diet members on the Socialist Party and the group of assistants sat down so as to stop it, but the government mobilized no less than five hundred of policemen….

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《The national security in 1960 didn’t always oppose to the security treaty》

…and excluding its obstacle one after another, and took a vote with the Liberian and Democratic Party alone.

After it was reported, the society was thrown into an uproar. Even mobilizing the police force and kicking out the opposing force and took a vote forcibly with the ruling party alone.

Lots of the people were worried about it was the crisis on the democracy, and the opposition movement got excited from there

The picture surrounding the National Diet…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

The picture surrounding the National Diet building by the large crowd was taken after everything was taken a vote at the House of the Representatives.

As long as passing it in the House of Representatives, leaving of absence on the House of Councilors and it’s all right for omitting the deliberation. the Kishi Cabinet had no concern at all. After thirty days, the treaty is approved of automatically, but lots of the people couldn’t accept it then.

《Deja vu on the national security in 1960 》

The opposing movement on the legislation for…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《Deja vu on the national security in 1960》

The opposing movement on the security related legislation didn’t so excited in the beginning. It was after forcing vote when it was intensified, after forcing the vote in the House of Representatives when various group joined in and the movement got excited.

Voices were getting higher from the people that lots of people like that are opposing to it, should it be decided by the member of Parliament alone? Or what is the democracy?

It takes after the national security in 1960, so the author…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《Deja vu on the national security in 1960》

…so the author said he thought of the deja vu. In addition, why did Mr. Abe tried to vote in a hurry? Because he promised to make the security related legislation form definitely until the summer at the Congress in America at the end of April in 2015, so he was in haste.

His grandfather tried to make it for the time when the President Eisenhower visited Japan. Both of them are alike.

The treaty was approved on the national security in 1960, but Japan fell into confusion, so it prevented…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《Deja vu on the national security in 1960》

…so it prevented the President Eisenhower from visiting Japan then, he refused to visit Japan, for the opposing movement was so big that Japan couldn’t take a stance of welcoming the President, as a result, Japan embarrassed itself so much and the Kishi Cabinet took responsibility for it and retreated then.

To tell the truth, the Kishi Cabinet must have thought making the new national security form and strengthening the relation between Japan and America, making the right of collective self…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《Deja vu on the national security in 1960》

…making the right of collective self defense force allow and carry out the amendment on the constitution in the next, but he was forced to retreat unexpectedly, so his intention stopped.

After the Kishi Cabinet retreated, in the next was the Hayato Ikeda Cabinet, but the atmosphere on the society in Japan changed completely, for the season on politics was over and it was the season on the economy, and Japan pushed forward to the high economic growth.

The people lost interest in the politics…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

《Deja vu on the national security in 1960》

The people lost interest in the politics at all and learned to think on the economy alone then, and Mr. Abe used to say the same thing, saying the politics has settled down, so he was going to devote himself to the Abenomics.

If making the Abenomics succeed in and the economy becomes good, the people would forget on the confusion with regard to the security related legislation and he was sure winning the coming election on the House of Councilors.

Depending on the situation, if carrying out…

【Proponents and opponents, not being on the same page】

…if carrying out the double election he was sure being able to make sure the approval of the two thirds from the House of Councilors, then at last it’s time for the amendment on the constitution.

The author said Mr. Abe thought like that then.

Mr. Abe was assassinated so no one was sure what happened if he was alive.

【The security legislation is against the constitution? What does it mean? The constitution interpretation】

《The security bill. What is the viewpoint on the public opinion?》

The public opinion poll on the security..

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

《The security bills. What is the viewpoint in the public opinion?》

The public opinion poll on the security legislation is the voice that we don’t have to hurry up was overwhelmingly.

For example, if looking at the public opinion poll by the Jiji press June in 2015, rejected bill was 12.0percent, on the other hand, the cautious deliberation in which we don’t have to take it seriously in the current Diet session was 68.3 percent.

The public opinion on the ANN by the Hodo Station August, the discarded plan was 22 percent, contrary to it…

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《The security bills》

…the careful deliberation in which we don’t have to be committed to the current Diet session was 64 percent.

Roughly speaking, the people of 80 percent had negative opinion, but Mr. Abe said as to the right of the collective self defense force or the security legislation, he appealed to the people in the election of the House of Representatives last time and he was supported by the people.

By the way, what was the focal point on the general election December in 2014?

It was put off on the consumption tax…

【The security bills are against the constitution?】

《The security legislation.》

It was putting off the consumption tax which Mr. Abe appealed among the strong voice of being the snap general election without the great cause.

We should have raised the consumption tax from 8 to 10 percent under normal circumstance, but the economic condition isn’t so good, so we want to put off a year and a half, but it’s the breach of convention, so I want to appeal to the people for their confidence.

Saying like that, and Mr. Abe carried out the election.

As pushing on the Abenomics, he emphasized the…

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《What is the viewpoint on the public opinion?》

…Mr. Abe emphasized the economic recovery, but no sooner had the election was over than he said both of the amendment on the constitution and the security bills were included in his campaign pledge, saying those two things were approved from the people, saying as if he had dissolved the Diet and appealed to the people for their confidence.

But then he asked the people he was going to put off for raising the consumption tax. Is it all right?

Everyone hate the tax increase in which we…

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

Everyone hates the tax increase in which each of them has a hard time, so if being asked if putting it off, everyone would say it’s all right.

The election was like that, so there has been the deception there from the beginning.

《If amendment on the article 9 is no, the one on the article 96, and if it’s also no, changing its interpretation》

Mr. Abe was the proponent of constitution reform to the core, but even if the ruling party accounted for two thirds in the House of Representatives, it couldn’t in the House of councilors.

【What does it mean? The constitutional interpretation】

《if the amendment on the article 9 is no…》

So he suggested we should amend the article 96 in the beginning. When making a comeback and in the beginning of the second Abe administration was formed, Mr. Abe used to say the amendment on the article 96 frequently.

What is the system on the amendment of the constitution?

When approval of the two thirds on both of the House of the Diet, the amendment on the constitution is proposed, and if being able to get the approval of majority in the referendum, the amendment is formed.

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

《…then the amendment on the 96, and …》

As to the referendum, there is the rule on it in the constitution, but how do we carry it out? Its rule didn’t exist for a long time, for the amendment on the constitution wasn’t realistic, so there wasn’t movement of making its rule for a long time, so Mr. Abe made the law on the referendum form at the first Abe government.

The constitution says the approval of the majority is indispensable, but what does the majority mean? Is it the majority of the whole number of eligible voters? Is it the …

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《…and it’s also no, changing its interpretation》

Is it the majority of the whole number of people who voted actually? Or is it the majority of the whole number of the valid vote? It was unclear for a long time.

But the law on the referendum is formed and is decided that the majority on the whole number of the valid ballot in the first Abe government. Thus Mr. Abe set the stage for the amendment on the constitution steadily.

But as to the amendment on the constitution, there are high hurdles, especially as to the article 9…

【The security bills are against the constitution?】

《The amendment on the article 9 is no…》

…especially as to the article 9, the Komeito doesn’t accept easily, so tries to drop the hurdle, it is decided the approval of two thirds on the article 96, so thought of being able to propose with the approval of majority. Then Mr. Abe justified like the next.

Even if the people from 60 to 70 percent think they want to amend the constitution, the member of the parliament of which number is over one third of over are opposed to it a little, we can do nothing. It’s in the wrong.

Then other proponent …

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《…the amendment on the article 96, and…》

The other proponent of constitutional reform accused Mr. Abe scathingly, saying changing the article 96 is as if it were the back door admission to a school.

If revising the constitution, we should do fair and square. Dropping its hurdle with the amendment on the article 96 and revising the article 9 is a cheap trick.

The criticism was hard for Mr. Abe, after that, he stopped saying on the article 96 at all, though every time he said he was going to change the article 96.

There was an…

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

《…and it’s also no, changing its interpretation》

There is an episode like the next.

There was an award ceremony on the People’s Honor Award for Shigeo Nagashima and Hideki Matsui. The award ceremony and memorial ceremonial first pitch were done in the Tokyo dome. Then Mr. Abe appeared there, wearing the uniform of Yomiuri Giants and his uniform number was 96.

After that a reporter asked him his intension was changing the article on the constitution, but he denied, saying he was the ninety sixth Prime Minister. As he was the ninety…

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《If the amendment on the article 9 is no…》

As he was the ninety sixth Prime Minister, his uniform number is 96. There was a resourceful person somewhere beside him, and it must have thought the ninety sixth connected with the ninety six article.

Mr. Abe was particular about the amendment on the article 9 like that, but stopped saying it all of sudden. In the next it was changing the interpretation on the constitution.

If being unable to do this, I’m going to try that. He did it twice. In the beginning, without changing the …

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

In the beginning, without changing the article 9, trying to change the article 96, and it was no, then let’s change its interpretation, but how should we change it? Oh! My grandfather used to say all the right of collective self defense is denied, so I’m going to use it. He must have thought like that.

Though the full exercise on the right of collective self defense isn’t allowed, a limited exercise is ok. His plan seemed to appear from there.

《is it allowed the right of self defense under the constitution of abandonment of war?》

《What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution》

《Is it allowed the right of self defense force…》

Why is it against the constitution of the exercise of the right of the collective defense force?

The successive cabinet which is different from Mr.Abe and the Cabinet Legislation Bureau went on saying the exercise on the right of collective self defense was against the constitution for more than forty years, counting the number of years from the viewpoint in 1972.

Before the judgement was solidified, it used to be unclear whether or not Japan had the right of self defense shortly…

【The security legislation is against the constitution ?】

《…under the constitution abandonment war?》

…it used to be unclear whether or not Japan had the right of the self defense shorty after the war. The article 9 declares the policy of abandonment of war. There used to be a discussion whether or not that the nation abandoning the war allowed the right of self defense.

The government has interpreted thinking the constitution doesn’t deny the right of self defense force, comparing it with the preamble of the constitution and the article 13 on the constitution.

The preamble is like the next

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《Is it allowed the right of self defense force…》

The preamble says, we make sure we have the right that the people all over the world escape from fear and deficiency equally and survive within the peace.

And the article 13 does, as to the right on the people seeking after the life, liberty and the happiness, we need to respect it on the legislation or on the national politics as long as it isn’t against the public welfare.

If Japan is attacked by a foreign nation, the right on the nation of life, liberty and seeking after the …

【The security bills are against the constitution?】

《…under the constitution abandoning the war?》

…the right on the nation of life, liberty and seeking after the happiness is threatened and worst comes to worst, the people can’t survive peacefully in Japan, so fighting so as to defend the nation of Japan is allowed. Though we abandon the war in the article 9, but it doesn’t mean we abandon the right of individual self defense that when Japan is attacked we fight back is clear as long as looking at the preamble and the article 13 on the constitution.

The logic is like that.

In short if….

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《Is it allowed the right of self defense…》

In short, if being attacked by a foreign nation with the armed force and Japan perished, the freedom and the right seeking after the happiness disappears. Japan must not perish, and nor the constitution allowed the nation to perish exists in the first place.

If being attacked fighting back and fighting against it is natural, and it isn’t forbidden to have the real ability of minimum necessary.

It’s the interpretation until at present. The author said.

The government has expressed the…

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

The government has expressed the constitution forbids to maintain the war potential on the army, navy, the Air Force and other one, but the self defense force isn’t equal to the war potential, and it’s the power organization, and it doesn’t reach the fighting power.

When expressing, I find the expression by the government is ridiculous.

《Why is it against the constitution the exercise on right of collective self defense?》

By the way, how about the right of collective self defense? It is allowed in the Chapter in the United Nations.

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《Why is it against the constitution…》

The chapter in the United Nations in which Japan joins are written like the next.

If the military attack is done to the nation joining the United Nations, the inherit right of the individual or the collective self defense isn’t harmed by any rule in the chapter until the Security Council takes the necessary measure so as to maintain peace and safety internationally.

It means Japan is allowed the right of the individual or the collective self defense definitely as the nation.

But the article…

【The security bills are against the constitution?】

《Why is the exercise on the right of the collective self defense against the constitution? 》

But the article 9 in the constitution of Japan says Japan doesn’t carry out the use of force as the way of solving the international dispute.

For example, let’s suppose America receives the armed attack from other nation. Then it means the international conflict is caused by the attack in which America received. If Japan goes to America so as to rescue America, it means Japan goes to the international dispute which has nothing to do with Japan.

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《Why is the exercise on the right…》

It means the use of the force of the way of solving the international dispute, so it is against the constitution. It’s the viewpoint on the Cabinet Legislation Bureau until then.

Japan has both of the right of individual and the collective self defense as the nation, and can use the right of individual self defense, for there is the permeable and the article 13, but as to the right of collective self defense, the article 9 says Japan abandons it as the way of solving the international dispute …

【The security bills are against the constitution? 】

《Why is the exercise on the right of…》

…the article 9 says Japan abandons the right of collective self defense as the way of solving the international dispute forever, so Japan can’t use it. It is said often though having it, being unable to use it.

It means Japan has the right of collective self defense as the right, but it is interpreted that the constitution forbids to exercise it, so we can’t use it.

It’s the viewpoint on the Cabinet Legislation Bureau for a long time. Then the Prime Minister Kishi said we can’t use all the right of…

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

Then the Prime Minister Kishi said it doesn’t always mean we can’t use all the right of collective self defense, we can use it partially.

After his saying the viewpoint by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau was made.

《What is the limited right of collective self defense which Mr. Abe insisted?》

But Japan has concluded the US-Japan Security Treaty. The treaty says if Japan is attacked from other nation, America will rescue Japan, and Japan offers the military base to America in exchange for being rescued by America. If the military…

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

《What is the limited right of collective…?》

If the military force in America is attacked by other nation around Japan, what can Japan do? If saving the military force belonged to America, it means rescuing other nation, and being the exercise of the right of collective self defense, isn’t it? So we can’t do it.

It was the viewpoint on the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.

But if doing like that, it may have been a biggest problem, for the military force belonged to America protects Japan, and when the military force belonged to America is…

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《What is the limited right of collective…》

…and when the military force belonged to America is attacked and the self defense force in Japan doesn’t protect the American Army, Japan will receive backlash fiercely from American people, and then the relation between Japan and America will collapse.

So we should allow the right of collective self defense to some extent so as to prevent if from happening.

It’s the thinking way of Mr. Abe, and the argument for allowing the exercise of the right of collective self defense.

Though Mr…

【The security legislation is against the constitution? 】

Though Mr.Abe tried to carry it out, but the Cabinet Legislation Bureau didn’t accept easily, so he thought changing the Director General in the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, intervening in the personnel on the bureaucrats, it’s the thing which the government official in Kasumigaseki hated than any other thing.

《What kind of the organization is the Cabinet Legislation Bureau? 》

There are three kinds of the Legislation bureau, the House of Representatives, the House of Councilors and the Cabinet.

When the Diet member of the House of…

【What does it mean? The interpretation on the constitution】

《What kind of organization is the Cabinet Legislation Bureau?》

When the Diet members of the both House of Representatives and Councilors make a law, as they aren’t always the specialists on the law, so the Legislation Bureau of the either of the House of Representatives or of Councilors give them advice.

When making the law, what should do they? There are complicated rules, and they taught the Diet members in detail.

On the other hand, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau is different from them altogether. As to the proposed law by the…

【The security legislation is against the constitution?】

《What kind of organization is the Cabinet Legislation Bureau?》

As to the proposed law by the Cabinet, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau checks whether or not it’s against the constitution or whether or not it contradicts other laws thoroughly beforehand.

They are career bureaucrats who work in the central government office as executive trainee. The ones in the Cabinet Legislation Bureau aren’t homegrown. Though they are specialists on the law, they work in other government office like Ministry of Finance, and so on, building their own…