(MENAFN- The Journal Of Turkish Weekly) The two new bills revising Japan's security posture and defining "collective defense" were bound to be controversial, given the country's preference for minimal defense consistent with its war-renouncing constitution.
The climate of opinion worsened for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government when three respected constitutional scholars testified to a commission of the lower house of parliament with their unanimous opinion that the proposed bills are unconstitutional.
"They are legally, politically, and economically unwise,' said Yasuo Hasebe, professor of constitutional law at Tokyo's prestigious Waseda University, speaking before foreign journalists.
The rebuke was especially stunning as Hasebe was invited to speak to parliament by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.
"Any interpretation of any clause [in the constitution] is not up for grabs," he said.
The scholars took pains to show they were not wooly-minded pacifists. Hasebe said he had supported the controversial and unpopular new state secrets law, which toughened penalties for leaking information on defense, foreign policy, counterterrorism and counterespionage.
His colleague, Setsu Kobayashi of Keio University, said he actually favored amending the constitution to permit collective defense.
The scholars estimated that more than 90 percent of their colleagues agree with them; it is a claim supported by other sources. A TV Asahi polling of 149 legal experts found that 98 percent believed the pending legislation unlawful.
China's news service Xinhua chimed in with its own critique, saying that the Abe administration was showing "dictators' arrogance" in pushing forward the bills.
The personal views of the legal experts, no matter how authoritative, do not invalidate a law. Only the Supreme Court has that authorization.
The last time the high court ruled on security matters was in 1959 when it held that the Self Defense Forces were constitutional.
Kobayashi said he expected that a legal challenge would be mounted soon after the laws were passed.
At issue is the constitutionality of "collective defense" defined as being legally able to come to the rescue of allied ships or planes under attack. Traditionally, collective defense has been defined as outside the boundaries of the charter.
In July 2014, the cabinet issued a decree "reinterpreting" the constitution to permit collective defense. The parliament is now debating two bills to put this decision into effect.
They would allow Japan's armed forces, known as Self-Defense Forces, to take part in United Nations-approved peacekeeping missions without having to enact a specific law in each instance.
They also amend about 10 existing laws to loosen some of the restrictions on Japan's use of force when formal allies or other closely associated nations come under attack, even though Japan itself is not actually directly threatened.
The Abe government had hoped to have the legislation enacted by the end of June when the current session of parliament is scheduled to end, but it is now almost certain that the session will have to be extended through the summer.
Opposition parties have complained that they don't have time to debate the complicated legislation. Public opinion is running against passage by, in some instances, 60 percent - though it is not clear if this is opposition to the bills themselves or the way, they say, they are being "rammed" through parliament.
Even if it has a huge majority in parliament, most Japanese governments are sensitive to the accusation that they may be "steam-rolling" legislation through the two houses of parliament. The main opposition Democratic Party of Japan has already boycotted some sessions.
On Sunday, around 45,000 people demonstrated in Tokyo against the proposed laws.
On paper, the Abe government should have no trouble passing the legislation. With its Komeito coalition partner, it enjoys a two-thirds majority in the lower house and a majority in the upper chamber. Only a simple majority is needed.
Washington was so sure about passage of the security bills that it agreed to publish new guidelines for Japan-U.S. cooperation in armed conflicts ahead of the crucial votes in parliament.
So far there have been no signs of a revolt within the leading party and its more pacifistic coalition partner Komeito - though there were considerable negotiations before the final versions of the security bills were tabled in parliament to satisfy Komeito's concerns.
Yet there was a curious meeting between Abe and Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, founder of the Japan Innovation Party, which with about 50 seats is the third largest bloc of parliamentarians.
Abe and Hashimoto generally see eye-to-eye on security matters, which raises the question whether Abe was fishing for insurance votes in the next-largest opposition party.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.