January 23, 2008
Shii urged Prime Minister Fukuda Yasuo to fundamentally change the government economic policy serving large corporations into one supporting the household economy and livelihoods of the public.
Japanese Communist Party Chair Shii Kazuo on January 22 took the rostrum in the House of Representatives plenary session to propose policies to address the urgent problems of employment, social security, agriculture, and taxation. He urged Prime Minister Fukuda Yasuo to fundamentally change the government economic policy serving large corporations into one supporting the household economy and livelihoods of the public.
The text of his speech is as follows:
On behalf of the Japanese Communist Party, I put questions to the Prime Minister.
First of all, let me ask about your policies on public livelihood.
In your policy speech, you repeatedly stressed “policies that put the people first.” However, you failed to propose any concrete measure to deal with the deep anxieties and crisis situations that the general public is experiencing due to increasing poverty and deepening social gaps.
I will question your basic stance from four aspects.
Employment: More stringent measures are needed to stop employers from trampling on dignity of temporary workers
First, questions regarding the issue of employment.
The government recently ordered the major staffing agency Goodwill to suspend its operations. The illegal use of temporary workers is prevalent these days. A series of illegal practices by staffing agencies has been exposed, including the use of temporary workers at harbor and construction sites in violation of the law, double dispatching of temporary workers and the use of temporary workers as independent contractors.
A series of deregulations of the Worker Dispatch Law has contributed to the rapid increase in the number of temporary workers to 3.21 million, which includes 2.34 million people who have signed up at staffing agencies for work as on-call day laborers. Their status is extremely unstable.
Many temporary workers earn less than two million yen a year no matter how hard they work, but their extremely low income is not the only source of their suffering. They are not enrolled in social insurance schemes. They are not paid for overtime work. They are not entitled to receive travel expenses. They are not allowed to use the company cafeterias. In the workplace they are called “Haken-kun” (meaning a ‘temp’) instead of by their proper names. This shows how temporary workers they are treated as “disposable workers” and are flagrantly discriminated against.
“We temporary workers can hardly move away from the status quo. Although we are toiling and enduring hardships while working, we are resigned to hopelessness about the future. Young people can’t make ends meet. Should such a society be allowed?”
This is one of those voices of urgency expressed in a letter to the JCP. Tell us, Mr. Prime Minister, how you feel about this? Is this what you mean by “a society that enables young people to live in hope”?
In amending the law to ease the regulations on the use of temporary workers, the government repeatedly explained that it would maintain the principle that “the use of temporary workers should be limited to temporary work and that it must not be allowed to substitute them for full-time workers.” However, the reality shows that the number of full-time workers is decreasing while contingent workers are rapidly increasing in number. Clearly, temporary workers are used as a replacement or substitute for full-time workers. Do you recognize this fact?
If the government insists that temporary workers must not be regarded as substitutes for full-time workers, you should set to work to drastically revise the Worker Dispatch Law to limit the use of temporary workers to actual temporary jobs, to prohibit the use of temporary workers as unstable day laborers, and to establish equal treatment under the law.
Social security: On government basic position regarding pension fiasco and new medical-care system for elderly
Second, about social security policies.
Prime Minister, you clearly said the Fukuda Cabinet will solve the problem of unidentified pension premium payment records. However, soon after sending out “special mails regarding the lost records” to pensioners concerned, the government has to review the contents of the special mails. What the government is required to do is to provide the public with as much information as possible concerning the problem, ask them for cooperation, and resolve the problem by using the wisdom of the public in order to restore the lost rights of the public.
In FY 2008, the medical system reform law that the Liberal Democratic and Komei parties forcibly enacted two years ago will fully come into force. As a result, Japan’s medical services will be further damaged with drastic cuts in the number of beds at hospitals and the scrapping of public hospitals. In particular, the public is resentful of the introduction of a new medical-care system for the elderly aged 75 or more.
We are receiving many messages from the elderly across the country expressing their anger.
One said, “We devoted ourselves to rebuild Japan that was ruined in the past war. When I learned of the new medical-care system for the elderly, I felt that this country is going to abandon us!”
Are they angry simply because of the heavier burden? No. They are angry at the system that discriminates people on the basis of their age. After they turn 75, they will be kicked out of the national health insurance system to enter a different system, will be burdened with higher premium payments, and will receive limited medical treatment. They are furious at the government policy of denying their right to life.
Prime Minister, how do you respond to the anger of elderly people? Is there any valid reason to separate people at the age of 75? Among countries with universal health-care systems, it is only Japan that will separate the elderly from other generations and put them at a disadvantage.
In the face of surging public anger, the government has decided to impose a temporary freeze on a very small portion of the new program. However, even such a deceptive measure shows that the government has had to admit the failure of the new system. I strongly urge you to cancel the implementation of the new medical-care system for the elderly.
The government has been slashing the estimated natural increase in the social welfare budget by 220 billion yen every year. It is this policy that has led to adverse revisions in the health-care, pension, and nursing-care systems as well as the welfare services for disabled people. I demand that the government abolish this policy.
Agriculture and food: We call for three changes in policy to revitalize Japan’s agriculture
The third issue is Japan’s agriculture and food which are in a state of crisis.
In the past ten years, producers’ rice price decreased by nearly 40 percent to 14,826 yen per 60kg on average in 2007. This was lower than the rice production cost, which was 16,824 yen according to the agriculture ministry’s calculation. Based on this rice price, farmers earn only 256 yen for an hour of work. Almost all farmers are forced to think if they should give up growing rice.
The government is fully responsible for such an extraordinary slide in the rice price. In these ten years, the government abolished the system to guarantee producers’ rice price and measures to support market prices, fully leaving price setting to the market mechanism in line with the World Trade Organization (WTO) agriculture agreement. The increase in rice imports accelerated a further decline in the price of rice. Prime Minister, no matter what reasons you may give, I must say the government agricultural policy that has reduced rice farmers’ earning to 256 yen an hour is nothing but a disastrous failure. Are you aware of your grave political responsibility?
Japan’s food self-sufficiency rate has decreased to 39 percent, abnormally low in comparison to other countries. Revitalization of Japan’s agriculture is an important requirement on which hinges not only farmers’ livelihoods but the survival of the Japanese people as well as the conservation of the land and environment of this country. The JCP, thus, strongly calls for a drastic shift in relevant policies.
Firstly, the government should ensure reproduction by introducing a set of systems to guarantee prices and compensate farmer incomes so that farmers can grow rice without anxieties. By creating a system to make up for deficiencies, the government must raise farmers’ spendable earnings to higher than 17,000 yen per 60kg to meet the cost of production.
Secondly, the government should cancel the agricultural policy of abandoning the overwhelming majority of farmers and adopt a policy to support family farmers and a policy to encourage all farmers who are willing to work in agriculture regardless of their size or method of management.
Thirdly, the government should put an end to liberalization of agricultural imports and promote trade rules based on the right of each country to independently decide its food and agricultural policies, promoting “food sovereignty” as endorsed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
Taxation: On revenue earmarked for road construction, consumption tax hikes, and corporate tax cuts
Fourthly, I would like to raise two issues regarding taxation.
One is the revenue earmarked for road construction. The crucial problem lies in the fact that this system in which revenue from the gasoline tax and other auto-related taxes can only be used for road construction has been working automatically to promote wasteful road construction. Such road construction has also been accelerated by the higher tax rate charged on gasoline consumption called the “provisional tax rate.”
The government is drawing up a “mid-term road construction plan” to spend as much as 59 trillion yen in the next 10 years. Instead of drawing up plans to build roads that are really necessary to improve people’s living conditions, this “total amount first” plan to use up 59 trillion yen will work as a mechanism to build roads just to use up the budget. In fact, the “mid-term plan” includes construction of unnecessary roads such as access roads to get to expressways from airports or seaports within 10 minutes.
The government is sticking to its plan to extend for 10 more years the earmarked revenue amounting to 5.6 trillion yen a year, including the funds collected under the “provisional tax rate” system. Is this because the government intends to use up 59 trillion yen in total by implementing the “mid-term road construction plan”?
The JCP demands that the earmarked revenue for road construction be turned into a general fund so that the fund will become available for the improvement in not only roads but also welfare, education, and people’s livelihoods.
We also demand that the provisional tax rate be abolished.
We urge the government to withdraw the “mid-term road construction plan.” Only roads that are urgently needed to improve people’s living conditions should be constructed.
We also propose to introduce an environmental tax to deal with carbon-dioxide emissions.
The other point is to revise the regressive tax system that shifts heavier tax burdens onto the public while relieving the tax burden of large corporations.
Prime Minister, in your policy speech you said, “We must promptly realize a fundamental reform of the taxation system, including the consumption tax” in order to secure “a stable source of revenue” for the social welfare system.
The ruling parties’ tax reform proposals published late last year view the consumption tax as the “main revenue” for social security programs and call for the “improvement in such revenues.” Prime Minister, do you plan to raise the consumption tax rate under the pretext of securing revenues for social security programs?
The JCP is fundamentally opposed to using the consumption tax which destroys people’s livelihoods as the main source of revenue for social security programs. Prime Minister, you must clearly state your position on this matter.
On the other hand, you vowed to further expand tax breaks for research and development conducted by large corporations.
In the past 10 years, the government has lightened the tax burdens of large corporations by more than five trillion yen in total by means of sharp reductions in the corporate tax rate and by expanding various preferential tax breaks. The government needs to redress the extremely generous corporate tax breaks for major corporations that are making record profits. Expansion of tax breaks for research and development that serves the interests of a handful large corporations will only further degenerate the tax system.
Shift the focus of economic policy from large corporations to households
The important question today regarding economic policy is where it should focus.
The government has long stood by the trickle-down economic growth theory that assumes that corporate prosperity will eventually have ripple effects on the household economy which will lead to the improvement in people’s livelihoods. However, the government “Monthly Economic Report” has been unable to support this claim since late last year. Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy Ota Hiroko in her speech to the Diet admitted that corporations have been remarkably strengthened, but that this has not contributed to an increase in wages and has been slow to have effects on the household economy. This theory has been totally discredited.
Now is the time for the government to shift the focus of its economic policy from large corporations to the household economy and the public. The government must adopt policies to directly assist the household economy. I am convinced that such a policy will effectively address the increasing poverty and social gaps and open up the way for a healthy development of Japan’s economy and society.
Global environment: Government position is called into question
The next question is how to address the issue of global warming.
Prime Minister, in your policy speech you vowed, “Japan will lead the international community by converting itself into a ‘low carbon society’ which will serve as a precedent for the world to emulate.” Here, I ask you two questions.
First, on the Japanese government’s response to the international society concerning this issue.
At the United Nations Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP13) held in Bali last December, the U.N. attached importance to efforts to be made in the next 20 years and the European Union insisted on adopting a numerical target in which developed countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2020.
However, the roadmap adopted by COP13 failed to include such a numerical target. Countries that drew severe criticism for blocking the attempt to include any numerical target for 2020 were the United States, Japan, and Canada. What the Japanese government is doing in the international community goes against the worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In the policy speech, you stated that at the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit, Japan will take the lead in “attaining the long-term goal of halving emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.” In order to make a long-term goal effective, it is important for developed countries to agree on a clear mid-term goal for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. I think that the Japanese government should take into account the EU proposal of 30 percent by 2020 and propose its own mid-term goal in the international negotiations.
Secondly, despite the fact that in the Kyoto Protocol, Japan pledged to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent by 2012, Japan, on the contrary, has increased it by 6.4 percent.
In contrast, European countries have began drastically reducing gas emissions by means of regulative and stimulus measures under government initiatives such as the conclusion of agreements between governments and businesses, the large-scale introduction of renewable energies, the trading of emission quotas by setting reduction targets of each corporation, and the introduction of environment taxes.
The crucial problem for Japan is that the government has left the task to reduce gas emissions from the industrial sector in the hands of the voluntary plan drawn up by the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren). There is no guarantee for Japan to achieve the goal. The government must conclude with the business circles an official agreement to require them to reduce gas emissions.
Permanent law to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces abroad at any time: We oppose legislation that goes against the current for peace
The final point I want to question you about is your proposal for enacting a permanent law to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces abroad at any time.
In your policy speech, you stated, “We will proceed with consideration of a so-called ‘general law’ for the purpose of implementing expeditiously and effectively international peace cooperation activities.”
I understand that what you call a “general law” is a so-called “permanent law” to enable the government to deploy the Self-Defense Forces abroad without having to ask the Diet to enact a special measures law to deal with such cases as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prime Minister, why a permanent law? For whom will it be?
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (of the Center for Strategic and International Studies) stated, “The ongoing discussion regarding legislation that would allow for the overseas deployment of Japanese forces based on certain conditions … is encouraging. The United States wishes to see a security partner with greater flexibility to deploy on short notice when the situation warrants.”
Your call for a permanent law is aimed at providing a legal framework for dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to assist in U.S. wars anyplace in the world.
World opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of the creation of a world without wars and diplomatic and peaceful settlement of international disputes wherever they occur.
I conclude my questioning by stating that the Japanese Communist Party is firmly opposed to the moves that pave the way for a permanent law allowing Japanese troops to be deployed abroad in violation of the Constitution’s Article 9 and in defiance of the world trend for peace.
The text of his speech is as follows:
On behalf of the Japanese Communist Party, I put questions to the Prime Minister.
First of all, let me ask about your policies on public livelihood.
In your policy speech, you repeatedly stressed “policies that put the people first.” However, you failed to propose any concrete measure to deal with the deep anxieties and crisis situations that the general public is experiencing due to increasing poverty and deepening social gaps.
I will question your basic stance from four aspects.
Employment: More stringent measures are needed to stop employers from trampling on dignity of temporary workers
First, questions regarding the issue of employment.
The government recently ordered the major staffing agency Goodwill to suspend its operations. The illegal use of temporary workers is prevalent these days. A series of illegal practices by staffing agencies has been exposed, including the use of temporary workers at harbor and construction sites in violation of the law, double dispatching of temporary workers and the use of temporary workers as independent contractors.
A series of deregulations of the Worker Dispatch Law has contributed to the rapid increase in the number of temporary workers to 3.21 million, which includes 2.34 million people who have signed up at staffing agencies for work as on-call day laborers. Their status is extremely unstable.
Many temporary workers earn less than two million yen a year no matter how hard they work, but their extremely low income is not the only source of their suffering. They are not enrolled in social insurance schemes. They are not paid for overtime work. They are not entitled to receive travel expenses. They are not allowed to use the company cafeterias. In the workplace they are called “Haken-kun” (meaning a ‘temp’) instead of by their proper names. This shows how temporary workers they are treated as “disposable workers” and are flagrantly discriminated against.
“We temporary workers can hardly move away from the status quo. Although we are toiling and enduring hardships while working, we are resigned to hopelessness about the future. Young people can’t make ends meet. Should such a society be allowed?”
This is one of those voices of urgency expressed in a letter to the JCP. Tell us, Mr. Prime Minister, how you feel about this? Is this what you mean by “a society that enables young people to live in hope”?
In amending the law to ease the regulations on the use of temporary workers, the government repeatedly explained that it would maintain the principle that “the use of temporary workers should be limited to temporary work and that it must not be allowed to substitute them for full-time workers.” However, the reality shows that the number of full-time workers is decreasing while contingent workers are rapidly increasing in number. Clearly, temporary workers are used as a replacement or substitute for full-time workers. Do you recognize this fact?
If the government insists that temporary workers must not be regarded as substitutes for full-time workers, you should set to work to drastically revise the Worker Dispatch Law to limit the use of temporary workers to actual temporary jobs, to prohibit the use of temporary workers as unstable day laborers, and to establish equal treatment under the law.
Social security: On government basic position regarding pension fiasco and new medical-care system for elderly
Second, about social security policies.
Prime Minister, you clearly said the Fukuda Cabinet will solve the problem of unidentified pension premium payment records. However, soon after sending out “special mails regarding the lost records” to pensioners concerned, the government has to review the contents of the special mails. What the government is required to do is to provide the public with as much information as possible concerning the problem, ask them for cooperation, and resolve the problem by using the wisdom of the public in order to restore the lost rights of the public.
In FY 2008, the medical system reform law that the Liberal Democratic and Komei parties forcibly enacted two years ago will fully come into force. As a result, Japan’s medical services will be further damaged with drastic cuts in the number of beds at hospitals and the scrapping of public hospitals. In particular, the public is resentful of the introduction of a new medical-care system for the elderly aged 75 or more.
We are receiving many messages from the elderly across the country expressing their anger.
One said, “We devoted ourselves to rebuild Japan that was ruined in the past war. When I learned of the new medical-care system for the elderly, I felt that this country is going to abandon us!”
Are they angry simply because of the heavier burden? No. They are angry at the system that discriminates people on the basis of their age. After they turn 75, they will be kicked out of the national health insurance system to enter a different system, will be burdened with higher premium payments, and will receive limited medical treatment. They are furious at the government policy of denying their right to life.
Prime Minister, how do you respond to the anger of elderly people? Is there any valid reason to separate people at the age of 75? Among countries with universal health-care systems, it is only Japan that will separate the elderly from other generations and put them at a disadvantage.
In the face of surging public anger, the government has decided to impose a temporary freeze on a very small portion of the new program. However, even such a deceptive measure shows that the government has had to admit the failure of the new system. I strongly urge you to cancel the implementation of the new medical-care system for the elderly.
The government has been slashing the estimated natural increase in the social welfare budget by 220 billion yen every year. It is this policy that has led to adverse revisions in the health-care, pension, and nursing-care systems as well as the welfare services for disabled people. I demand that the government abolish this policy.
Agriculture and food: We call for three changes in policy to revitalize Japan’s agriculture
The third issue is Japan’s agriculture and food which are in a state of crisis.
In the past ten years, producers’ rice price decreased by nearly 40 percent to 14,826 yen per 60kg on average in 2007. This was lower than the rice production cost, which was 16,824 yen according to the agriculture ministry’s calculation. Based on this rice price, farmers earn only 256 yen for an hour of work. Almost all farmers are forced to think if they should give up growing rice.
The government is fully responsible for such an extraordinary slide in the rice price. In these ten years, the government abolished the system to guarantee producers’ rice price and measures to support market prices, fully leaving price setting to the market mechanism in line with the World Trade Organization (WTO) agriculture agreement. The increase in rice imports accelerated a further decline in the price of rice. Prime Minister, no matter what reasons you may give, I must say the government agricultural policy that has reduced rice farmers’ earning to 256 yen an hour is nothing but a disastrous failure. Are you aware of your grave political responsibility?
Japan’s food self-sufficiency rate has decreased to 39 percent, abnormally low in comparison to other countries. Revitalization of Japan’s agriculture is an important requirement on which hinges not only farmers’ livelihoods but the survival of the Japanese people as well as the conservation of the land and environment of this country. The JCP, thus, strongly calls for a drastic shift in relevant policies.
Firstly, the government should ensure reproduction by introducing a set of systems to guarantee prices and compensate farmer incomes so that farmers can grow rice without anxieties. By creating a system to make up for deficiencies, the government must raise farmers’ spendable earnings to higher than 17,000 yen per 60kg to meet the cost of production.
Secondly, the government should cancel the agricultural policy of abandoning the overwhelming majority of farmers and adopt a policy to support family farmers and a policy to encourage all farmers who are willing to work in agriculture regardless of their size or method of management.
Thirdly, the government should put an end to liberalization of agricultural imports and promote trade rules based on the right of each country to independently decide its food and agricultural policies, promoting “food sovereignty” as endorsed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
Taxation: On revenue earmarked for road construction, consumption tax hikes, and corporate tax cuts
Fourthly, I would like to raise two issues regarding taxation.
One is the revenue earmarked for road construction. The crucial problem lies in the fact that this system in which revenue from the gasoline tax and other auto-related taxes can only be used for road construction has been working automatically to promote wasteful road construction. Such road construction has also been accelerated by the higher tax rate charged on gasoline consumption called the “provisional tax rate.”
The government is drawing up a “mid-term road construction plan” to spend as much as 59 trillion yen in the next 10 years. Instead of drawing up plans to build roads that are really necessary to improve people’s living conditions, this “total amount first” plan to use up 59 trillion yen will work as a mechanism to build roads just to use up the budget. In fact, the “mid-term plan” includes construction of unnecessary roads such as access roads to get to expressways from airports or seaports within 10 minutes.
The government is sticking to its plan to extend for 10 more years the earmarked revenue amounting to 5.6 trillion yen a year, including the funds collected under the “provisional tax rate” system. Is this because the government intends to use up 59 trillion yen in total by implementing the “mid-term road construction plan”?
The JCP demands that the earmarked revenue for road construction be turned into a general fund so that the fund will become available for the improvement in not only roads but also welfare, education, and people’s livelihoods.
We also demand that the provisional tax rate be abolished.
We urge the government to withdraw the “mid-term road construction plan.” Only roads that are urgently needed to improve people’s living conditions should be constructed.
We also propose to introduce an environmental tax to deal with carbon-dioxide emissions.
The other point is to revise the regressive tax system that shifts heavier tax burdens onto the public while relieving the tax burden of large corporations.
Prime Minister, in your policy speech you said, “We must promptly realize a fundamental reform of the taxation system, including the consumption tax” in order to secure “a stable source of revenue” for the social welfare system.
The ruling parties’ tax reform proposals published late last year view the consumption tax as the “main revenue” for social security programs and call for the “improvement in such revenues.” Prime Minister, do you plan to raise the consumption tax rate under the pretext of securing revenues for social security programs?
The JCP is fundamentally opposed to using the consumption tax which destroys people’s livelihoods as the main source of revenue for social security programs. Prime Minister, you must clearly state your position on this matter.
On the other hand, you vowed to further expand tax breaks for research and development conducted by large corporations.
In the past 10 years, the government has lightened the tax burdens of large corporations by more than five trillion yen in total by means of sharp reductions in the corporate tax rate and by expanding various preferential tax breaks. The government needs to redress the extremely generous corporate tax breaks for major corporations that are making record profits. Expansion of tax breaks for research and development that serves the interests of a handful large corporations will only further degenerate the tax system.
Shift the focus of economic policy from large corporations to households
The important question today regarding economic policy is where it should focus.
The government has long stood by the trickle-down economic growth theory that assumes that corporate prosperity will eventually have ripple effects on the household economy which will lead to the improvement in people’s livelihoods. However, the government “Monthly Economic Report” has been unable to support this claim since late last year. Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy Ota Hiroko in her speech to the Diet admitted that corporations have been remarkably strengthened, but that this has not contributed to an increase in wages and has been slow to have effects on the household economy. This theory has been totally discredited.
Now is the time for the government to shift the focus of its economic policy from large corporations to the household economy and the public. The government must adopt policies to directly assist the household economy. I am convinced that such a policy will effectively address the increasing poverty and social gaps and open up the way for a healthy development of Japan’s economy and society.
Global environment: Government position is called into question
The next question is how to address the issue of global warming.
Prime Minister, in your policy speech you vowed, “Japan will lead the international community by converting itself into a ‘low carbon society’ which will serve as a precedent for the world to emulate.” Here, I ask you two questions.
First, on the Japanese government’s response to the international society concerning this issue.
At the United Nations Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP13) held in Bali last December, the U.N. attached importance to efforts to be made in the next 20 years and the European Union insisted on adopting a numerical target in which developed countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2020.
However, the roadmap adopted by COP13 failed to include such a numerical target. Countries that drew severe criticism for blocking the attempt to include any numerical target for 2020 were the United States, Japan, and Canada. What the Japanese government is doing in the international community goes against the worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In the policy speech, you stated that at the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit, Japan will take the lead in “attaining the long-term goal of halving emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.” In order to make a long-term goal effective, it is important for developed countries to agree on a clear mid-term goal for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. I think that the Japanese government should take into account the EU proposal of 30 percent by 2020 and propose its own mid-term goal in the international negotiations.
Secondly, despite the fact that in the Kyoto Protocol, Japan pledged to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent by 2012, Japan, on the contrary, has increased it by 6.4 percent.
In contrast, European countries have began drastically reducing gas emissions by means of regulative and stimulus measures under government initiatives such as the conclusion of agreements between governments and businesses, the large-scale introduction of renewable energies, the trading of emission quotas by setting reduction targets of each corporation, and the introduction of environment taxes.
The crucial problem for Japan is that the government has left the task to reduce gas emissions from the industrial sector in the hands of the voluntary plan drawn up by the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren). There is no guarantee for Japan to achieve the goal. The government must conclude with the business circles an official agreement to require them to reduce gas emissions.
Permanent law to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces abroad at any time: We oppose legislation that goes against the current for peace
The final point I want to question you about is your proposal for enacting a permanent law to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces abroad at any time.
In your policy speech, you stated, “We will proceed with consideration of a so-called ‘general law’ for the purpose of implementing expeditiously and effectively international peace cooperation activities.”
I understand that what you call a “general law” is a so-called “permanent law” to enable the government to deploy the Self-Defense Forces abroad without having to ask the Diet to enact a special measures law to deal with such cases as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prime Minister, why a permanent law? For whom will it be?
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (of the Center for Strategic and International Studies) stated, “The ongoing discussion regarding legislation that would allow for the overseas deployment of Japanese forces based on certain conditions … is encouraging. The United States wishes to see a security partner with greater flexibility to deploy on short notice when the situation warrants.”
Your call for a permanent law is aimed at providing a legal framework for dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to assist in U.S. wars anyplace in the world.
World opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of the creation of a world without wars and diplomatic and peaceful settlement of international disputes wherever they occur.
I conclude my questioning by stating that the Japanese Communist Party is firmly opposed to the moves that pave the way for a permanent law allowing Japanese troops to be deployed abroad in violation of the Constitution’s Article 9 and in defiance of the world trend for peace.
