Upper House Plenary Session March 21, 2003 　 Questions concerning the "Report on the State of Affairs following the Use of Force on Iraq"

Wakako Hironaka

I have a number of questions, as the representative of the Shinrokufuu-Kai of the Democratic Party of Japan, concerning the government's "Report on the State of Affairs following the Use of Force on Iraq."

As the people of the world most gravely feared, President Bush gave his final warning to President Saddam Hussein in a speech to the American people on the evening of 17 March, local time. He stated there would be severe consequences if "Saddam Hussein and his sons do not leave the country within 48 hours". The "severe consequences" referred to are the bombing raids on Iraq that have now started.

The Democratic Party of Japan strongly opposes this war, and advocates a return to the pursuit of a peaceful solution. I will set out the reasons for this policy below.

In his speech of 17 March, President Bush stated that the attacks on Iraq are aimed at the ruling regime, and not the innocent Iraqi people, whom the attacks seek to liberate. However, the fact of the matter is that once the use of force begins, the damage will spread widely and without prejudice. There will be massive loss of life, and whole cities and their supporting infrastructure will be torn apart. Under the pretext of "the defense of democracy", the allies' attacks will wreak havoc on the people and country of Iraq. There will tens, if not hundreds of thousands of refugees, most of whom will be women and children, who know nothing of war. I ask the Prime Minister now of his view on this matter.

The weapons of the United States are hi-tech, powerful and effective. At the arrival of the 21st Century, the peoples of the world sought a new approach to the solution of political problems; an approach that would differentiate the 21st century world from the bloody world of the last century. The Constitution of Japan, and the Charter of the United Nations demonstrate this fact.

Secondly, the United Nations was born from the regret for the loss of 50 million lives in the First and Second World Wars. Does the Charter of the United Nations not make illegal all wars that are without Security Council backing, or are made other than in self-defense? Therefore, is the present war on Iraq, which lacks Security Council backing, and is not made in self-defense, not blatantly in breach of the Charter of the United Nations?

The reasons for this are quite simple. Iraq has not attacked America, and there has been no link made between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the organization alleged to have committed the atrocities of September 11 the year before last. Despite these facts, unilaterally deploying a massive force of 300,000 troops and 6 aircraft carriers to attack Iraq based on Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, without a new resolution, will undoubtedly undermine the authority and credibility of the United Nations. I ask the Prime Minister further, do the actions of America and her allies not then go directly against your statement that a new Security Council Resolution would be necessary?

The third reason we oppose the Bush administration's use of force is that it is premised on the need to address not present, but future threats. If the use of force is carried out, it will amount to a pre-emptive strike, and lead the world to a position where such pre-emptive action is acceptable. Fear leads to pre-emptive action, and from there follows a vicious circle of use of force. I ask the Prime Minister for his opinion on this point.

Fourthly, despite the fact that the stated purpose for a pre-emptive strike was disarmament, the focus of American rhetoric is now shifting to regime change. Does this not constitute intervention in another sovereign state?

The fifth reason for our opposition is that the actions of the US and her allies could potentially aggravate and induce further terrorist attacks throughout the world. In particular, the reaction of the Arab World will only serve to further aggravate the Arab-Isreali problem. We fear that it could lead to a clash of civilizations. I ask the Prime Minister for his opinion on this issue.

Our sixth point is that war does not always produce the desired result in dispute resolution. America surely realizes this from its bitter experiences in Vietnam. How can a real victory be attained once the self-respect of the people of the opposing nation has been damaged? International problems must be solved through resolute and patient diplomatic cooperation. Is this not the Prime Minister's view also?

The seventh issue concerns the war's effect on the economy. The war will have grave consequences for the world economy stemming from uncertainty, such as fluctuating crude oil prices and instability in oil supply. The potentially disastrous consequences for the Japanese economy in particular cannot be overestimated. Where does the Prime Minister stand on this matter?

Our eighth point: we cannot overlook the destructive effects of war on the environment. War causes the most serious forms of environmental damage. The 3rd Global Water Forum is currently being held in Kansai. The peoples of the world have no hope of survival if we do not make the 21st Century a century for the environment, and not war.

Our ninth issue concerns the massive amount of funding that America will require for the war. I ask the Prime Minister for his estimate of the financial cost of the war. America will no doubt turn to Japan as its ally for substantial financial support. What is the government's stance on funding and the approach to reconstruction once the conflict is over? It is only natural to share such burdens when one feels the issue is worthy, but most Japanese would surely not agree to the use of taxpayers` money merely on the basis of good US-Japanese relations, and the US-Japan Security Treaty. Rather than pursuing the ridiculous policy of destruction and rebuilding, we should push for more thorough inspections, and make greater efforts to reach a peaceful settlement of the problem.

Immediately following President Bush's speech two nights ago, and again today, on the first day of the conflict, Prime Minister Koizumi restated Japan's support for America. This is despite the fact that 80% of the population opposes the conflict. Why should Japan support America on this issue at the cost of ignoring the authority of the United Nations, and in the face of the opposition of scholars of international law who oppose the conflict on the ground that it is a breach of international law? The government's decision is based on an assessment of Japan's policy as an American ally and friend. I ask the Prime Minister to make clear to us now in what way Japan will offer cooperation in the war against Iraq.

The Special Law Dealing with Terrorism applies under specific conditions only, and as such cannot apply here. I ask the Prime Minister to confirm this point.

I have had the opportunity to take on board the repeated comments of Foreign Minister Kawaguchi regarding the need for the international community to cooperate in a unified manner, in the face of American pressure on Iraq to disarm. Is Iraq not responding in a reasonable way to this pressure? Has the destruction of 50% of the Assamoud II (a conventional weapon), not already been carried out within a month? For inspections to have their intended effect throughout Iraq, Iraqi cooperation is essential, and it is a fact that Iraq has been less than forthcoming in cooperation with inspectors to date. However, as France and Germany have stated, with a little more time the weapons inspectors will be able to do their job.

The start of the war may cause widespread terrorist backlash. The American government has unified its response to terrorism through the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. I want to know how serious the Japanese government is, and what the Japanese government is doing, about the threat of a terrorist attack.

Furthermore, I am concerned for the safety of the Japanese people engaged in humanitarian work at great personal risk in Iraq and its surrounding countries. I question the response of the Japanese government in providing protection for these people, by providing gas masks and medical supplies for example.

Prime Minister, you offer only briefest of explanations for your policies. In peacetime, this approach might suffice. However, this is not a time of peace. In times of crisis, you must explain your decisions with clarity. The government has a responsibility to explain. On this matter, your stance stands in stark contrast to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who, while risking his own political life on the issue, has explained the situation to the British people in simple terms. Whatever his position on the issue, I feel that Prime Minister Blair has acted fairly towards the British people.

However, when the British government decided to side with America and participate in the conflict, it was reported that there were a number of resignations from the British cabinet, starting with General Secretary Robin Cook. I ask the Prime Minister whether there is one politician within your own cabinet who has the courage to act with such conviction and a sense of justice.

I lived in America for many years, and I have even come to think of America as my second home. Many of my American friends have come to criticize the Bush administration's predisposition to the use of force, and are gravely concerned for the future of their nation.

Also, the statement of Japan's UN Ambassador Haraguchi's in February that "Japan will support America" is being accepted as the status quo in this country.

I felt the need to amplify Japan's real voice, both at home and abroad, and to this end I collected signatures with my fellow female parliamentarians. Our efforts culminated in the sending of a request for opposition to America's war on Iraq. Of the 72 female members of the Lower and Upper houses, a majority of 42 gave their signatures. The document was then translated in to English, and publicized to the world through foreign media companies.

The document emphasizes that the Japanese historical experience shows that "it is the ordinary people, including women and children, who suffer most in war", and that "nothing is born from the use of force". The document also expresses concern over the fact that government policy does not reflect the will of the population, over 80% of whom oppose the use of force.

On 12 March, I was unfortunately unable to meet with the Prime Minister personally due to his busy schedule, so I met with Chief Spokesman Fukuda and handed the bundle to him instead. I ask the Prime Minister now for his response to the document.

Prime Minister, and Members of the House, surely Japan's correct policy is one of respect for the authority of the UN, and of the construction of an orderly and sustainable global society based on adherence to international rules and peace.

Japan is already internationally active in the spheres of preventative diplomacy and the insurance of human safety. The government, Members of the House, bureaucrats, NGOs, and even individual people, must creatively exercise leadership to this end.

Japan is the first country to have suffered the use of weapons of mass destruction. Japan can be proud of having never exported arms. Japan now has a special chance to show the world the value of being a "Peaceful Nation".

I strongly request the government to demand America to cease the attack on Iraq. With this request, I end my questions.

Your question concerns whether the American attack on Iraq is in breach of the Charter of the United Nations.

It was my belief that a new resolution of the Security Council would be desirable on the basis that it would represent the common intent of the international community. I regret that such a resolution was not made. However, I do not consider the current American and allied use of force to be in violation of the United Nations Charter. As the series of reports from the weapons inspectors makes quite clear, Iraq has not carried out its obligation to disarm required by Resolution 1441, and therefore I believe that we can only conclude that Iraq has committed some still greater breach of its obligations. Accordingly, the use of force is justified by a serious breach of Resolution 678, on the basis that Resolution 687, which specifies the terms of the ceasefire, has been seriously breached.

Regarding your question on the purpose of the attack, the American government has stated, as it has always done, that the purpose of the attack is the destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, as obliged by the relevant Security Council resolutions.

Furthermore, I sincerely hope for a speedy end to the fighting, with loss to life and property limited to an absolute minimum.

The attack on Iraq does not constitute a clash of civilizations. Iraq has, for many years, failed to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, in breach of its obligations under the various Security Council resolutions. The international community has made relentless efforts to overcome this state of affairs, but in the present situation, a situation devoid of the possibility of changing Iraq's stance, I feel that the use of force by America and her allies is unavoidable.

Regarding the effects of the war on the economy, after the initiation of hostilities, our country's economy and financial markets are stable. The conflict has not brought about disorder.
I believe that future developments will be determined by the course of the conflict, so it is hard to make a clear assessment of matters at this time. However, I can say that my position is that the conflict must not cause disturbance to our economy, nor anxiety to our people.

For these reasons, it is the position of this government that with the cooperation of other nations, we must remain vigilant to changes in the economy and financial markets, such as exchange rates, crude oil and share prices, and ensure that the conflict does not cause any unexpected events, by cooperating with the Bank of Japan for a reliable oil supply and stability in the financial system.

Regarding the calculation of expenses of the war, the American administration has not made a public announcement. We are not concerned with such matters, and the American government has not made any demands of us.

Based on the assessment of our response to the conflict that I just announced, I intend to put into effect a broad and effective emergency plan. In parallel to this, aid based on the Special Law on Terrorism will continue, and will indeed be strengthened.

Regarding our policies for the safety of the Japanese people, we will make speedy announcements on potential danger to ensure the safety of Japanese people in Iraq and the surrounding countries, and at the same time establish communication with Japanese people based in the region and means of evacuation through our diplomatic missions. Furthermore, in some surrounding countries, we are considering the use of government chartered planes and planes reserved for government use. We are making the necessary preparations.

For the prevention of domestic terrorist attacks, we will increase our efforts in the collection and analysis of information on terrorist activities, and strengthen our security measures at important buildings, American military establishments and foreign diplomatic missions. To establish the safety of Japanese marine vessels, we will provide information through warnings of potential danger, and request that the relevant countries involved with our shipping industry do the same.

As background to our decision to support America, we must remember that America is an invaluable ally, and that America's role in the establishment of peace and safety in the Asian region, the region that surrounds Japan, is indispensable. America is currently making a great sacrifice in seeking to destroy weapons of mass destruction for the benefit of the international community as a whole. I believe that it is the natural position of Japan, as America's ally, to give as much support as possible.

You asked whether there are any cabinet members who will resign over this issue. The Koizumi cabinet is united in its support for the use of force of America and her allies. The cabinet will act as one in executing the necessary measures to ensure that the conflict does not affect the economy, or cause anxiety to the Japanese people.

Your questions concern our stance on the issue of war in Iraq. It was not an easy decision to support the use of force. However, we are not isolated from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. In the current state of affairs, where weapons of mass destruction cannot be destroyed without the use of force, I believe it is in our country's interest to support America and her allies.