 |
| Tomomi Inada (Image: Wiki Commons) |
The semantic finagling that Defense Minister Tomomi Inada has attempted in her remarks in the Diet about the conditions in which Japan's Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) is participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations (PKO) in war-torn South Sudan have stirred controversy, and opposition lawmakers are stepping up their pursuit of the minister's slipups.
The remarks at the center of the latest controversy were made during a House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting on Feb. 8. Addressing the issue of daily reports written by the GSDF unit in South Sudan -- which the Defense Ministry initially said had been discarded but later said had been discovered in digital form -- major opposition party lawmaker Nobuhiro Koyama asked for the government's position on the report's phrasing that a "combat broke out."
In the South Sudanese capital of Juba last July, there was massive armed conflict between government and antigovernment forces that involved tanks and resulted in several hundred wounded or dead.
The GSDF daily report called the event "combat," but Defense Minister Inada insisted that what took place was "combat in the general sense of the word, but in the legal sense it was not combat, but an armed clash." When Koyama sought Inada's clarification, she said, "The expression 'combat" would be problematic under Article 9 of the Constitution, so we use the term 'armed clash.'"
In response to the inconsistencies in the minister's remarks, SDF Chief of Staff Katsutoshi Kawano explained in a news conference Feb. 9 that he instructed SDF personnel in South Sudan to keep in mind that the use of the term "combat" when compiling daily reports could stir controversy, indicating that he had been concerned of the confusion that could ensue as a result.
On the night of Feb. 10, several hundred protestors gathered in front of the Diet to demand the resignation of Defense Minister Inada. Political scientists and opposition lawmakers also showed up at the rally and made speeches. One asked, "If an act that violates the Constitution is reworded, is that act constitutional?" while another said, "If the government can do whatever it wants just by changing the wording of something, that is a complete denial of constitutional democracy."
Read the full story at The Mainichi