[talk] How Should We Respond to the Recent Terrorists Crimes?

Masakazu Yamazaki: Representative of the Advisory Board
Motoo Shiina: Upper House Representative

Kudo: This is coincidentally the day that the reprisals to the recent terrorist acts are to be implemented. Terrorist crimes which deny our civilized society have been publicly perpetrated. However, in Japan there have been those who write sympathetically about these crimes, and I believe that public opinion is confused. Looking at the debates in the Diet, there are those whose opinions underestimate the seriousness of these circumstances, and there is some indication that the debates remain how they were in the past. We at Genron NPO would like to take the opportunity to debate this question in a serious manner, also indicating the start of our publications.

First, in this day of reprisals, we would like to hear your opinions on the present circumstances, and then speak of what these recent terrorist acts mean to us.

Yamazaki: To tell the truth, I didn't know that this was the day of reprisals. In other words, I have only heard of the declarations that the air attacks were being started and attacks limited to military targets. Therefore, I believe that these are only the start of reprisals. The real targets are Bin-Laden and the Arcadia group, and there will be attacks to rid us of their presence in their fronts by the special divisions.

However, if the American side completely gets the rights to air space and implement food assistance, etc. to the general Afghanistan population, I believe that this would be a significant act under consideration .

Shiina:: First of all, I don't like the use of the word "reprisals". The media is using the word. However, if you use this word, it gives the extremely primitive nuance of attacking someone who attacked you, and I don't like the use of reprisal attacks. I believe that this is an action which holds a defensive significance towards the future.

As Professor Yamazaki says, this is only the beginning, and has been started after much deliberation, so I believe that it is an attack on the most important targets. The question is what next. However, I believe that the plans to provide food from the air, like humanitarian assistance, are an extremely good part of these actions.

During the Vietnam War, my father met with Dean Rusk, and asked whether the ratio of actions might not be 7 politically and 3 militarily. From this, if there was wisdom at the time in this manner, might not the results have been different and might not there have been a better regime in place? The targets were clear and it would have been considered in detail.

Yanazaki: The Bush administration from the start had an image of a professional administration. First of all, there are not many leaks from this administration. An international journalist I know of said that there is not as much informational leaks compared to the Clinton administration. Secondly, there is the impression that Bush and his administration is steadily progressing in its initial plans.

However, as an example, this is war. Bush's wording that this is retaliation gives way to some misunderstanding. It might be better to call it a war to heighten the spirits of the American people and show the scale of the action, but in reality it is completely a police action. It is a case where the criminals are purely hiding in unmentionable places and there is the necessity to find them and punish them on a large scale. The correct wording should be "punishment".

Kudo:I would like to proceed to talk about the characteristics and the significance of this event, by considering the questions that this terrible crime has laid out before us.

Shiina:: If we return to consider this situation, peace-keeping centering around the US had continued for a long time. For a time, the phrase, "America is the world's policeman" was used. However, if they are policemen, the headquarters of the police was in a safe place. When the US implemented military action, it was always abroad, outside the US. Therefore, even during the Cold War, the word "theater" was used. It was used to indicate a European theater or an Asian theater, but there was no American theater. The only possibility was the use of nuclear weapons such as those used by intercontinental ballistic missiles. If this was kept clear, America was safe.

American embassies and other American targets were attacked, but this was outside the American territories and there was the extremely strong feeling that the US was not attackable security wise. This feeling was undermined completely by the terrorist acts, and this was their significance.

Therefore, we learned that there was an American theater. The psychological shock of the American people was an extremely significant attack to the US. This is not comparable to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was then an American territory and not part of the US continent, and therefore, the level of danger was completely different.

Another point we must consider is the quick action in recognition of the implementation of collective self-defense by the European nations of NATO, in response to the American acts. This I believe is an extremely significant event. I think that there was always the doubt that in the past, the policemen who were sent from the home office would return some day. However, in this case, the Europeans became real friends. I think it was a welcoming to the shared club considered the war zone. The fact that Japan is left out of this group which has this type of significance is the most problematic question, I believe.

Therefore, I think that Japan, having been defeated by the US, occupied by forces lead by the Americans, receiving a constitution under the Americans and tied with the US through the Security Pact and under US-Japan Security agreements, believed the US to be safe and been too close to the Americans. In both a good sense and a bad sense, the Japanese were too closely linked to the US. Only through documents believed to secure the safety of Japan were we able to hold the psyche that Japan was secure. I believe that Japan's problem is that this psyche still remains.

The Americans are feeling that they too are in danger. I think that it is only Japan that feels itself safe among all the countries of the world. Therefore, those who traveled in the US were restricted by the stopping of planes, and told to go back to Japan. They returned looking like they felt secure in returning to Narita, but this is the problem. The voicing of opinions reflected this fact, and on T.V., the Japanese opinions are that of looking on from a higher plane.

This is the most significant problem and we must consider what Japan should do to really make friends in the world. In other words, the US has become a regular nation, and I believe that the start of new alliance connections or a revision of the old ones will come in an extraordinarily wide spectrum.

Yamazaki: I agree with you totally.

Kudo: Mr. Yamazaki, please comment on the significance of these questions.

Yamazaki: First of all, I think this is an event that will remain in the history of our civilization. The nation was created as a promise since the modern age. In 200 years, approximately 200 nations were created. This promise had as its principle that crimes were different from war and safety was different from defense. Crimes were evil looking commonly across all states. Therefore, the responsibility of the government was that crime would be controlled within the nation. From this, the criminal who would do harm to other countries would be caught and handed over to the home governments. The nation would be responsible in principle for safety within its borders whether or not there was a treaty for extradition.

The other side of this question was the sovereignty of nations. For a long time, foreign nations could not directly interfere with questions within other nations. When this became the norm in the world over, attacks against the centers of other countries which harbored criminals began. If these were simply criminals, the host nation would be able to control them, but there are doubtful countries such as Afghanistan controlled by the Tarabans, and it is my belief that they used double edged tactics. Double edged in a manner that they used double standards in emphasizing their sovereignty. Therefore, while Afghanistan says that they will not subject themselves to other countries' interference, they can't manage crimes within their own country. They even leave criminals who are trouble for other foreign countries alone. This situation is an event never seen in the past, and I believe that in this manner, these have been historic events.

However, I think that the way of handling this should be simple and clear. Such irresponsible countries should see that the international society does not recognize the sovereignty of such countries and that it will unilaterally try to get the criminals despite their sovereignty. In other words, the things which are being done to capture Usama Bin Raden are not complicated. However, such circumstances may be possible in the new historic stage, and it should be considered within the society formed among responsible nations separately, the so-called civilized nations.

Kudo:Mr. Shiina mentioned previously that this is like looking at the circumstances from a higher plane. What do you think is the problem in Japanese debates and how do you think of these debates?

Shiina:: Before considering the Japanese debates, I'd like to address the problems raised just now by Professor Yamazaki. I agree with him completely, and such agreements have been constructed over 200 years. This is what is considered to be so-called international laws. With the end of the second World War, the United Nations was established, and an institution which would control the whole world was created while learning from the mistakes of the League of Nations. In this, the promises constructed upon the non-written and written laws were to be drafted into a constitution which became the Charter of the United Nations.

The precondition for such an alliance is, as Professor Yamazaki just indicated, that it is a collection of nations which can take full responsibility, and when written in a pretty manner, it ends up like the Charter. However, it is still a pretty manner to say that in reality there are nations that are irresponsible, and there are even states which are controlled by NGO's in a bad sense. There is still a worship of the United Nations in Japan, and there are many intelligent people who think that the United Nations have authority to all nations. However, the United Nations is a collection of nations and nothing more. Therefore, there are nations which cannot be controlled by other nations or the United Nations, andI believe that there is raised new questions on how to handle NGO's which hold an extremely negative significance.

Therefore, what exactly is war ands what is not war? We would have to use other wording to answer this. In other words, we have to determine on what to do in matters not indicated within the law. If we are to utilize statutes that exist presently, it is the simple use of self-defense clauses. This is because we are the victims. The Japanese are included in the victims. Tony Blair has stated very clearly that if British people are killed, whether it be within British borders or not, it is an attack against Great Britain. Therefore, he states that the actions they take are in self-defense. I consider this the most primitive of responses for a nation.

Looking from this viewpoint, the basic policy of Japanese defense was built within the defeat in World War 2, the Occupation , the drafting of the Constitution, and the Security Pact which should have been enforced by the United Nations. However, the Security Pact was constructed in an age when the United Nations were not functioning, During those times, there was a distinction between collective and individual self-defense which were part of the system of international law from way before the establishment of the United nations. In that system, the right of self-defense is a God-given right. I now believe that the question is how to use that right.

Furthermore, since the Japanese like the law, it is a big problem on what is and what is not written. As a custom and as judicial decisions, the terrorists declared their actions, and I believe that this side should declare its actions and place them within the new system of international law in a parallel manner, and that is how I believe we should consider these declarations.

Yamazaki: Just now, when you stated that it was a bad example of NGO's, you were absolutely correct, and although it is a joke, we could call them non-governmental outlaws. The things that the outlaws do is use maliciously as a representative right of nations. Normally, the nation, even when it is not ruled by democracy but by effective control, us representative of the people. Therefore, if you call the nation as a whole as being bad, these people are considered to be taken as bad according to the commonsense of the world and in history. For instance, after World War 2, the war was brought on by bad leadership in Germany and in Japan, but it cannot be said that the general population did not have any responsibility. In fact, we still bear the burden of that war. This is the normal stance of nations.

However, the Taliban family or the Arcadia which are central to the recent events claim to be representative of the Afghanistan people. If they have effective control, it should declare a state of war in understanding that there will be attacks against the people. The problem is that in these recent events, there is not just a heinous attack with no declaration of war. In other words, they have made it clear that they are not representative of the people. Therefore, what the so-called peaceniks or pacifists say is that is a great shame in the armed fire against innocent Afghanistan citizens throughout the world. There is nothing as stupid as this.

In other words, innocent citizens are not considered in the line of fire in modern thought. The people of the nations in the fighting are considered parties to the war. In a debate like this, it would be another debate, but this is what is common sense. In this debate, the Afghan people are troubled by parties who declare themselves representative of the people and attack other countries. This is what can be said in a widespread manner, and at present, such outlaws are found throughout the world. Inclusive of Japan, the liberals or the wise men of the civilized world are being ridden on such mistaken theories. We are being ridden through our own responsibility.

In other words, the implementation of such terrorist acts explain diligently the heinous murders with reasons discovered by themselves, such as the general discrimination of Arab peoples or the pressure that Israel places on the Palestinians, etc. Therefore, the criminals of the recent events outstep the common sense of modern society and those people who cannot distinguish between those who are outside this common sense can be seen to lack understanding of all the realities of these events.

Kudo: Mr. Shiina, what do you think of such comments. Is public opinion still confused?

Shiina:: I think it is natural in such times. To a degree, such people exist anywhere. In the US, also. For such people, there is nothing to do but to act according to what should be done.

In other words, when you talk of such events, it will be as if nothing has been done. If nothing is done, the situation becomes worse. If such a situation is allowed to exist, that NGO will gain acceleration, and the international system becomes even more developed. Even now, there are 60 countries. These will continue to be strengthened. If this is the case, doubt will be fostered towards the people who sit next to you. When one meets someone else, the most secure way of life will be to believe that the neighboring person is bad. The problem of discrimination is taken up many times, but the question of whether or not the person next to you has a beard and should be defeated is a question of the past. The future of mankind should be a world where man is able to say that this is good, and I believe that a society where others can be trusted is what we should aim for. Furthermore, wherever and however one is born, people should be able to go and do how they want as long as one can work, according to one's own capabilities. This I believe indicates that the crimes perpetrated recently damages all of this from the roots.

Furthermore, there is now the debates which indicate that Japan is in a terrible situation economically. People are worried extremely about social security, what one should do if we become sick or unemployed. Looking at this from the other side of the coin, we want a stable society. Crime is the same. We have been friends to all in the world, and have established an order which we built proudly. To destroy such order is no one except our enemies. We ourselves are threatened.

Yamazaki: In this case, it is an age where sayings which have continued for decades in the intellectual world should be destroyed. For example, the reasons given for the implementation of terror by certain people are the poverty of those people or the horrors that those people have experienced in the past. This theory is at first sight applicable. These reasons are given to internal crimes in Japan. For instance, when crimes of youth occur, there are some who claim that the adult society is at fault or the parents and the teachers should be punished in place of the youth. There are also poor people or many who are in difficult straits, but there are people who do not commit crimes, and I think this is humiliation to those people. Looking from recent concepts, those people who do not commit crimes are only less sensitive to social problems. Such stupid debates should be distinguished, and social problems be positively solved as social problems. However, criminal activity is different. It is at the root of sensitivity, and should be seriously considered as such.

In addition, there are people who claim that terrorism is the only weapon for the weak. However, all people who commit terrorist politics such as fascism, totalitarianism and communism claim to be on the side of the weak. Saying that terrorism is the only weapon of the weak is a sophistical. Furthermore, the end of the 20th century and the Cold War have given way to debates of discrimination throughout the world, or the problem of cruelty and the solution to many such problems are being seen in this new age.

For instance, in Kosovo, NATO attacked the Yugo people who had in common the Christian religion, and Muslims were not attacked. Therefore, when the situation became worse, the principle of solution of the threat to human rights should be implemented through international cooperation throughout the world was finally exercised. In East Timor, the situation was the opposite. The Muslims committed the invasion of rights, and the free world relieved such invasions. During this event, international public opinion carried a big weight. In such circumstances, the conditions where terrorists acted before World War 1 cease to exist, and there are no more reasons for terror. Unless these circumstances are realized, the next concrete steps cannot be taken.

Kudo:Next, we turn to the response by the government and Japan. In a paper written by Mr. Shiina, the Japanese government did not completely respond to the change in paradigms. According to Mr. Shiina, the Japanese government always places priority on human lives, and he is very critical of this stance. In face, the Prime Minister read this paper while he was on the plane to a summit meeting.

Shiina:: When circumstances move so quickly, there is an extreme time lag before a paper is read. What I can say now is that the Koizumi cabinet is doing the best it can in such circumstances. However, there are many roads and many considerations and there are people who are mistaken in their understanding of the circumstances we face, so one must compromise to be able to move things along. Therefore, the question of the Constitution is raised, and this is inevitable. I believe that these questions must be solved and Mr. Koizumi is doing well under the circumstances.

Yamazaki: I agree completely.

Shiina:: It is said that the right brain is for sensory perception and the left brain is for reason. However, I think that in Japan, the right brain is completely ignored and many people talk just with their left brain. The right brain considers this mistaken, and in this manner, Mr. Koizumi appears to be working on the right brain. Today, such people are necessary, and it appears that those who appear on television use their weak left brain to be argumentative.

Yamazaki: I believe that in this age, we should take into consideration things in a complicated manner and seek a simple solution to these things. Wise men have the tendency to think about the reverse side of incidents which occur. If we consider the reverse side again, we return to surprisingly simple resolution. If we only consider one surface of a problem, we end up lining up argumentative debates. I think that Mr. Koizumi takes into deep consideration such problems. I believe that simple resolution are the true solutions.

First, we must recognize that the 20th century type of war ended in the Gulf War. In other words, Iraq was an extremely cruel state and controlled by outlaws, but it invaded another country in the name of the Iraqi nation. The regular forces came and another country was occupied by the military and tanks. Therefore, this was the last classical type of warfare implemented in a manner which had been taken in past wars from the 19th century onwards. This was defeated by multinational forces. If Japan participated in this war, there would be various questions concerning the constitutional restrictions, and this was inevitable.

However, a completely new type of conflict was introduced by the recent events. As Mr. Shiina mentioned earlier, I don't know what to call this type of conflict, but it called for police action necessary on an expanded military scale. Therefore, Japan declared in the past that in losing the Second World War, it would not conduct a 20th century type of war again. However, I believe that Japan should declare clearly that we have entered a world where the circumstances are different. Exercise of such war can be done without saying anything, but it can be shown in a concrete form.

In our Constitution, it is clearly written that war as a means to resolve international disputes are prohibited. This is not international conflict. International conflict is the type of war implemented as an expansion of diplomacy between nations. Therefore, it bears the responsibility for the results of the wars, and if one is defeated, it is defeated. It is possible to draw a line at the end. However, there is no one responsible for the criminal actions taken recently, and therefore, no one has the right to declare the end of the war. Therefore, the world is being confused by something it does not understand. This is the 21st century type of warfare.

Therefore, I don't believe that it is necessary to change the postwar Constitution in a hurry. Questions which were not forecast by that Constitution have arisen. To solve such questions, we should create new laws. I am not a specialist in politics, and I ask Mr. Shiina to critique me when I am wrong, but what a want to propose is a new alliance. This is an alliance against terrorists. I don't know what China will do, but it is obvious that Russia will ally itself with the formerly liberal nations.

Furthermore, the conservative Arab nations. These countries will create an alliance which promises collective security in a clear manner.

The important thing now is an evaluation by this alliance of each event, and it is probably to be started by defining of such events. This is urgent. For instance, the Aum religious forces let out poison gasses within Tokyo. This is a terrorist act, but it is doubtful whether or not this act needs international cooperation to solve. However, if Aum attacked new York in the same manner, this is international terrorism. Therefore, it would be the object of fighting by the alliance.

From this, I think there will be many new incidents. For instance, the Palestinians attacked with guns in its Infitada and it is necessary to define whether or not these are acts of terrorism at each point in time. Therefore, the alliance will determine the definitions. If it is determined to be terror, all countries should share in the military burden in an equal manner. Japan would also be party to such a treaty, so there are no more distinctions between PKF's and PKO's, so it could take an initiative to begin a clear war of self-defense.

Shiina; I also think that this is very important. If we go to clean up what we face at each moment, circumstances in which people will be enthralled by saying many things will continue. Therefore, as mentioned before, actions are fine, but we must add a chapter in such a new international law. As Professor Yamazaki says, it would be best if we could formulate a clear treaty on such matters, but I think that it will be an opportunity to build a constructive world which does not distinguish between friends and enemies such as were found in the 20th century. Referring to what exists today, there is no clear indication in the Constitution. As Professor Yamazaki says, it is not an international conflict. If this is the implementation of a basic right of self-defense, there is no distinction between collective and individual.

From time to time, I use examples to state my case. In this case, let us say that someone we don't know of is going to the bank. If people with face masks came into the bank and locked up all the people in one room and said that they would kill these hostages if they had do, this is completely a question of self-defense. All the people could claim self-defense in such a situation.

What to do in this case? Let us say that one of the perpetrators came out of the room and consulted on what he should do to kill these people. This is the question of collective self-defense.

If at this time, what would happen if one of the criminals said that no consultations were to be done when causing an act of violence according to his family's rules, and he said that he could not join his fellow culprits. The current situation is what we have today. I believe that this is a question which precedes discussions on recognition of collective self-defense in reality. From Mr. Koizumi's right brain, he says that Japan will do whatever it can. This is correct.

Yamazaki: I agree with you in the present circumstances. However, in the future, many types of situations can be imagined. In other words, a specific individual can say that it is representing the people when conducting justice upon his own selfish determination. If this is so, there are many civilized forces in the world where guerillas could appear. Furthermore, with the development of information technology and scientific technology are expanded throughout the world, hitherto unheard of armaments can be discovered. Therefore, it will become a difficult situation when the capabilities between individuals or between individual and nation become unclear. Furthermore, we must specify what is to be carried out by domestic law and what will be handled by the military. I believe that a framework to root out such criminals internationally will become necessary.

As long as we create a civilized society, it is necessary to prohibit the use of invasions in the name of such an alliance, and I would place locks on the situation that I mentioned earlier. In other words, actions should be limited to those by terrorists. What is terrorism? This should be debated between alliance partners together. Obviously, the preconditions for recent events is world public opinion, and in a free society it is not possible to resist world public opinion. A treaty whence such restrictions are clearly specified should be drafted and a so-called protocol to this treaty should recognized that we responsible nations are the only ones which can enjoy sovereignty . All nations which are irresponsible or cannot take responsibility is not a member of the international society no matter how much it claims to be a nation. They are not even enemies of the international society. They are outside of international society. Therefore, if a treaty which allows interference in domestic affairs is created and Japan ratifies such a treaty, this supercedes the Constitutional restriction in a complete manner. I believe that the conscientious people who are presently wondering what to do now within the Japanese nation will understand such a restriction.

Kudo: Mr. Shiina also mentioned in the beginning of this discussion that the international society is now facing a new alliance framework under the present circumstances when the US continent is facing danger.

Shiiina: Yes, that's true. Although we consider it necessary to help the US because it is an allied country, that is not true. All the states are part of the alliance. As Professor Yamazaki says, we want all the states to be friends of the alliance. How to achieve such an alliance? Under the present legal system, we should not debate details before this system; we should consider the future. To do so, there are many nations which have the right to take strong initiatives. Japan can also take the initiative, even with its present Constitution.

Yamazaki: A more intricate problem has been created in the case of Afghanistan recently, because it is a situation where Usama Bin Laden is hiding somewhere within Afghanistan. Furthermore, surrounding Bin Laden is the Teriban which has forces which can be seen and they are the controlling forces, so that attack is simple. If there were a country which had much money, power and there was no democratic politics, and that it harbored burglars to implement crimes in a third country, I believe there would be questions in such a case. This is a story which is possible. In such nations, also, it could be the object of an attack after evidence of such acts arise. In other words, nations supporting terrorists should themselves lose the qualifications as countries, and in the future, more confusing questions will arise.

Furthermore, the necessity of such an alliance is found in the lack of functions of the United Nations. There is the question of the time it takes for the UN to act, but the most problematic question is the existence of nations which have the veto in the Security Council. If the veto is used, nothing can be done, so I believe that the UN should be respected as is, and a different framework for alliance should be considered separately.

Kudo: We are approaching the end of our discussions, but there is the debate which ties together the present questions to the questions of the Constitution in some quarters. Mr. Yamazaki said that this can be implemented without referring to the Constitution; how do you Mr. Shiina think about this problem?

Shiina:: Our Constitution was written based on the most idealistic positions in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. When the United Nations was created, I believe that it started with the thought to forbid the use of war by individual nations, if UN Forces could be created. This was the drafting of the Charter. At that time, in relation to the question of what would happen if each country had unique rights to self defense, and there was already alliances based on collective self-defense. There were debates against barring this right, because the United Nations might not have the effectiveness necessary, and so the right of collective self-defense was added to the Charter.

Next, it would be necessary to write in individual self-defense. This was obvious, and it can be claimed that it would not be necessary. However when recognizing the right to collective self-defense, it would be unnatural to refrain from writing in the right to individual self-defense and therefore, the Charter includes both rights. That was the order in which they are written. In other words, the source of such rights is the right to individual self-defense. This begins with the recognition that everyone has such a right, and the US-Japanese alliance which built upon such rights mixed up the order so that the Constitutional right to collective self-defense was the government interpretation. This is certainly necessary when conducting 20th century warfare which Professor Yamazaki mentioned earlier, but I believe that for new conflicts, they stand outside the framework of the Constitution.

Yamazaki: I have a feeling that another new domestic policy should be considered in the most urgent manner. It is a novice opinion, however.

The government states that the budget for the next fiscal year should save 5 trillion yen and leave 2 trillion yen more to use. Right now, the use of this 2 trillion yen is being considered within the various Ministries and I believe that 1 trillion yen should be used for anti-terrorist policies. For instance, the urgent production of antibiotics. Furthermore, the development of vaccines against polio should be supplied to all citizens. Of course, this is concern against biological weapons.

Furthermore, the fisheries industry is in recession at the present time, and ten thousand fishing boats might be borrowed to police the shores of the country armed with automatic weapons. Of course, training to do this is necessary. Separately, it is important to increase the number of police, but this cannot be done in a day, so we should employ a million people to act as recruits for the police. This is to help the unemployment situation. Their duty should be work which does need the use of pistols done by the uniformed police. For example, inspections to different houses do not need to be done using pistols. Of course, laws should be created to prevent the use of information gained in any manner other than for anti-terrorist policies. We should also recognize that such information cannot serve as evidence in a court of law. Especially in the large cities, they should implement kind guidance to children, assist foreigners in a kind manner, and increase by a million the number of people with a grasp of societal movements. What do you think of this idea?

Shiina:: However, there will be great opposition to such a plan which might serve to create a police state.

Yamazaki: Even now, volunteer work is recognized, so it isn't a bad thing at all to help lonely foreigners. Also, guidance of children is not something that should be left to teachers alone, so we can let adults who have had a little training participate. Gathering information occurs as a result of such activities, and I believe such information will serve for good use. Technically, it is difficult for the state to hire people directly to do these thing, and so we can have personnel banks hire a million people and send them to do some of the work of the state.

Kudo: Finally, please give us an opinion of the problems raised by the recent terrorist incidents.

Shiina; From the past, war was something which was outside the province of those who were not directly involved. It was so during the time of the warring states, and even in the 19th century when it was the era of war between the peoples, it was so. However, this time is a new form for which a name is still to be attached, and so we cannot remain above these circumstances. The Japanese must be awoken from the mistaken belief that Japan alone is a safe country, This is because when studying the real statistics, this is untrue. This pertains especially to the politicians and others who must take responsibility.

This is not just a military question, but there are also many aspects to this problem. If the economy is in ruins, there will occur fighting within Japan, and it has been homework for a long time. We have to consider drastic measures to rebuild the Japanese economy as quickly as possible.

Furthermore, the Japanese must become better. Japan should no longer be jealous of others, and it becomes necessary to consider how the Japanese can be considered good. This I believe is an especially important point.

Yamazaki: I also thing it's a question of the heart. Mr. Koizumi stated from the beginning that he would firmly support the American police action. The very next day, Governor Yasuo Tanaka of Nagano raised objections in the newspapers, and he stated that if one says such unnecessary words, it would raise danger to the lives and property of the Japanese people. I think that this is immoral. When people all over the world who love freedom and civilization are faced with the same fears, one cannot but share the same fears. One cannot be alone in feeling comfortable. In fact, it is inevitable, but I think that it is humiliating to be alone in feeling comfortable. As long as the Japanese are like this, it will never be possible for Japan to hold a place of honor within the international community in other problems.

If you want to spread out such examples, there are many. For instance, if there is an airplane accident, the Japanese media look first to whether or not there are Japanese people involved. Of course, it is not bad that they do so, but with the sense of relief that no Japanese are hurt, it is not possible to live in society of the future.

Kudo: Thank you very much.