12 city councils in Chugoku region approve statements opposing security bill
Jul. 7, 2015
by Dai Nakajima, Staff Writer
Regarding a security bill that would enable the Japanese government to exercise the right of collective self-defense, it was learned that, as of July 1, 12 city councils in five prefectures in the Chugoku region in western Japan have approved written statements which oppose the bill or call for careful deliberations at the Diet. This response to the security bill was made in regular city council meetings held in June and July, according to a survey conducted by the Chugoku Shimbun, and indicates that local councils have raised a red flag to the central government as it seeks to pass the bill in the current Diet session. Meanwhile, nine city councils have rebuffed making such statements and others have shown reluctance to take up the matter. Opinions among city councils are divided.
By prefecture, Hiroshima and Tottori prefectures each have four city councils that have expressed opposition to the security bill or call for more careful deliberations. This is the largest number of local councils in the Chugoku region. In Okayama and Shimane prefectures, two city councils have adopted statements. In Yamaguchi prefecture, which includes the district from which Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s was elected, no local councils have signaled support for such statements.
In Hiroshima prefecture, the four city councils of Takehara, Miyoshi, Shobara, and Sera approved statements. The Miyoshi city council called for scrapping the bill, stating, “The bill will lead to Japan becoming a war-making nation and, through the Self Defense Forces, create war victims around the world.” The city councils of Shobara and Sera also expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it would uproot the foundation of a peaceful state. The Takehara city council strongly urged the government to deepen the nation’s debate on the bill.
Constitutional scholars, one after the next, have contended that the security bill is unconstitutional. The Tsuwano city council has called for halting efforts to pass the bill by saying that “it would virtually destroy Article 9 of the Constitution.” Given these views that the bill is unconstitutional, the Unnan city council urged the central government to consider the bill carefully. The Tottori prefectural council also called for careful reflection.
On the other hand, although the Hiroshima city council and the Kitahiroshima city council proposed similar written statements, they were rejected with less than a majority voting for approval. At least 16 city councils did not pursue a statement on the matter. The Yamaguchi prefectural council is expected to approve a statement calling for the bill to be passed in the current Diet session.
Even when members submitted a written statement to their councils, many bodies refused to take up the proposal. Reasons for this have included: “The bill is now being discussed at the Diet” (the Hiroshima prefectural council and the Onomichi city council) and “One local council is unable to judge the challenges faced by the national government” (Shinjo city council). As discussion in the Diet advances, some local councils will likely clarify their stance.
Last July, the Cabinet approved Japan’s right to exercise the right of collective self-defense. Responding to this decision, nine city councils in five prefectures in the Chugoku region have approved written statements which express opposition and have submitted these statements to the Upper House and Lower House, and the central government.
(Originally published on July 2, 2015)
Regarding a security bill that would enable the Japanese government to exercise the right of collective self-defense, it was learned that, as of July 1, 12 city councils in five prefectures in the Chugoku region in western Japan have approved written statements which oppose the bill or call for careful deliberations at the Diet. This response to the security bill was made in regular city council meetings held in June and July, according to a survey conducted by the Chugoku Shimbun, and indicates that local councils have raised a red flag to the central government as it seeks to pass the bill in the current Diet session. Meanwhile, nine city councils have rebuffed making such statements and others have shown reluctance to take up the matter. Opinions among city councils are divided.
By prefecture, Hiroshima and Tottori prefectures each have four city councils that have expressed opposition to the security bill or call for more careful deliberations. This is the largest number of local councils in the Chugoku region. In Okayama and Shimane prefectures, two city councils have adopted statements. In Yamaguchi prefecture, which includes the district from which Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s was elected, no local councils have signaled support for such statements.
In Hiroshima prefecture, the four city councils of Takehara, Miyoshi, Shobara, and Sera approved statements. The Miyoshi city council called for scrapping the bill, stating, “The bill will lead to Japan becoming a war-making nation and, through the Self Defense Forces, create war victims around the world.” The city councils of Shobara and Sera also expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it would uproot the foundation of a peaceful state. The Takehara city council strongly urged the government to deepen the nation’s debate on the bill.
Constitutional scholars, one after the next, have contended that the security bill is unconstitutional. The Tsuwano city council has called for halting efforts to pass the bill by saying that “it would virtually destroy Article 9 of the Constitution.” Given these views that the bill is unconstitutional, the Unnan city council urged the central government to consider the bill carefully. The Tottori prefectural council also called for careful reflection.
On the other hand, although the Hiroshima city council and the Kitahiroshima city council proposed similar written statements, they were rejected with less than a majority voting for approval. At least 16 city councils did not pursue a statement on the matter. The Yamaguchi prefectural council is expected to approve a statement calling for the bill to be passed in the current Diet session.
Even when members submitted a written statement to their councils, many bodies refused to take up the proposal. Reasons for this have included: “The bill is now being discussed at the Diet” (the Hiroshima prefectural council and the Onomichi city council) and “One local council is unable to judge the challenges faced by the national government” (Shinjo city council). As discussion in the Diet advances, some local councils will likely clarify their stance.
Last July, the Cabinet approved Japan’s right to exercise the right of collective self-defense. Responding to this decision, nine city councils in five prefectures in the Chugoku region have approved written statements which express opposition and have submitted these statements to the Upper House and Lower House, and the central government.
(Originally published on July 2, 2015)
