憲法調査会（平成12年5月2日）の英文会議録


CONFERENCE OF RESEARCH COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION
THE HOUSE OF COUNCILLORS
May 2, 2000


ATTENDANCE :
Guest Speaker :
　　　　　　 Ms. Beate Sirota GORDON,
　　　　　　　　 Former staff member, Government Section,
　　　　　　　　 General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander Allied Powers
　　　　　　 Mr. Richard Armstrong POOLE,
　　　　　　　　 Former staff member, Government Section,
　　　　　　　　 General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander Allied Powers
Research Commission on the Constitution :
　Chairman　 Mr. Masakuni MURAKAMI
　Director　 Mr. Kimitaka KUZE
　　　　　　 Mr. Takao KOYAMA
　　　　　　 Mr. Yoshitada KOUNOIKE
　　　　　　 Mr. Keizo TAKEMI
　　　　　　 Mr. Satsuki EDA
　　　　　　 Mr. Yukihisa YOSHIDA
　　　　　　 Mr. Yuichiro UOZUMI
　　　　　　 Mr. Chikashi KOIZUMI
　　　　　　 Ms. Masako OWAKI
　Member　　 Mr. Issei ANAN
　　　　　　 Mr. Kuniomi IWAI
　　　　　　 Mr. Mitsuhide IWAKI
　　　　　　 Mr. Yoshihiko EBIHARA
　　　　　　 Ms. Chikage OOGI
　　　　　　 Mr. Toranosuke KATAYAMA
　　　　　　 Mr. Hiroaki KAMEYA
　　　　　　 Mr. Hitoshi KIMURA
　　　　　　 Mr. Shuji KITAOKA
　　　　　　 Mr. Takao JINNOUCHI
　　　　　　 Mr. Hiroshige SEKO
　　　　　　 Mr. Syuzen TANIGAWA
　　　　　　 Mr. Mahito NAKAJIMA
　　　　　　 Mr. Takeshi NOMA
　　　　　　 Mr. Minao HATTORI
　　　　　　 Mr. Iwao MATSUDA
　　　　　　 Mr. Keiichiro ASAO
　　　　　　 Ms. Mie ISHIDA
　　　　　　 Mr. Toshimi KITAZAWA
　　　　　　 Ms. Teiko SASANO
　　　　　　 Mr. Yoshimitsu TAKASHIMA
　　　　　　 Mr. Giichi TSUNODA
　　　　　　 Mr. Masayuki NAOSHIMA
　　　　　　 Ms. Yoriko MADOKA
　　　　　　 Mr. Susumu YANASE
　　　　　　 Ms. Reiko OMORI
　　　　　　 Mr. Hiroshi TAKANO
　　　　　　 Mr. Junichi FUKUMOTO
　　　　　　 Mr. Atsushi HASHIMOTO
　　　　　　 Mr. Yoshinori YOSHIOKA
　　　　　　 Ms. Haruko YOSHIKAWA
　　　　　　 Ms. Mizuho FUKUSHIMA
　　　　　　 Mr. Sadao HIRANO
　　　　　　 Mr. Michio SATO
　Secretariat :
　　　　　　 Mr.Toshihiko OSHIMA,
　　　　　　　　 Director-General,　Secretariat of the Research Commission on the
　　　　　　　　 Constitution
　　　　─────────────
(MINUTES)
CHAIRMAN:　 Ladies and gentlemen, we would now like to open the Research Commission on the Constitution under the House of Councillors.　The agenda item is the "Investigation on the Constitution."　Ever since the Research Commission on the Constitution was established at our House, we will be for the first time celebrating tomorrow the date to commemorate the Constitution.　We are indeed privileged to have the experts who were involved in the drafting of the so-called MacArthur Draft of the Constitution, which eventually became the Japanese Constitution, to give their views on their experiences during that time.　
　 As a guest speaker we are privileged to have Ms. Beate Sirota Gordon, who was on the Subcommittee on Human Rights.　We also have Mr. Richard Poole, who was the Naval Ensign at the time, and who was a member of the Subcommittee on the Emperor, Treaties and Enabling Provisions, as a guest speaker.　We also invited Mr. Milton Esman, who was the First Lieutenant of the Army at the time and who was involved in the Subcommittee on the Administrative Authorities, but he has been taken ill, so he has informed us with a doctor's note that he will not be able to be present at this Commission Session.　I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the guest speakers.　Thank you very much for traveling such a long way to attend the Research Commission on the Constitution.　On behalf of the Commission, I would like to express my sincere appreciation.　
　 I would also like to thank the members of the Research Commission on the Constitution.　Even though we are amidst the Golden Week Holiday season in Japan, I am sure you must be very busy, but I would like to thank you for taking the time to attend this Research Commission.　As the Chair of the Commission I would like to thank all of you as well.　
　 Perhaps this may be only natural - of course, please do not put this into the record of the meeting - but this is something required of you.　I very much hope that the guest speakers will be very frank and candid in their views and opinions.　As to how we should be proceeding, we would like to first of all ask Ms. Gordon, and then Mr. Poole, to speak to us for twenty minutes each, and then go on to question and answers.　I would like to ask both the guests speakers as well as the members of the Commission to please be seated while you speak.　
　 May I invite Ms. Gordon, first of all.

GORDON:　 Ladies and gentlemen of the House of Councillors, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak on this important occasion.　
　 Good day, everyone.　My name is Beate Sirota Gordon.　I think there are people who have traveled from far away, but I guess I have traveled the longest distance.　I came from New York City.　It is a great honor to have been invited here by the Research Commission on the Constitution.　Thank you very much for inviting me.　
　 I am so glad to see so many women participating as the members of the Research Commission and in the audience today.　Before the War, it was unthinkable to have such a large group of women participating in a meeting like this.　After fifty-five years, this is happening in front of my eyes.　And it is almost like a dream for me.　
　 There are 43 women members of the House of Councillors.　This is something to be congratulated.　This is much better than the Senate in the United States, where we have only nine women senators.　So congratulations to the women in Japan.　
　 In December 1945, I was associated with the American military establishment and flew to Japan from New York City.　I had been away from Japan for five years, so when I saw the destruction, my heart sank.　I was born in Vienna.　When I was five and a half years of age, I came to Japan together with my family.　So Tokyo is closer to me than Vienna.　Tokyo was almost like my hometown.　During the War, my parents were in Karuizawa, so when I began my work, or before I began my work with General MacArthur's GHQ, I went to Karuizawa.　With food shortage and fuel shortages, they were having a very hard time.　When they told me how things were during the War, my heart again ached for the suffering people of Japan.　After I stayed with them for two days, I came back to Tokyo and I was assigned to the Government Section of the SCAP of GHQ.　
　 The first work I did was research with respect to the women's political movement.　In a month or so, on the 4th of February, at 10:00 o'clock, General Whitney, Head of the Government Section, told me: "You are going to be a member of the Constitutional Assembly from this day onward, and this is to be completely confidential.　You are going to act upon the orders of General MacArthur, and your job is to draft a Japanese Constitution."　Twenty or so people received this briefing and they were all stunned by it.　
　 General MacArthur, until the 4th of February, had no intention of giving this task to his staff members.　Minister Matsumoto, the Minister without portfolio, was asked by General MacArthur to draft a Constitution, but he came up with the draft which was not so different from the Meiji Imperial Constitution.　So, in the final analysis, General MacArthur gave up and gave this task to General Whitney.　
　 After the announcement by General Whitney, Colonel Kades assigned various tasks of drafting the Constitution.　Regarding civil rights, three people were given this task, two men and one woman.　And that woman was me.　Afterwards, the three of us got together and decided who was going to write which section of the portion.　And then the two men said: Beate, you are a woman, so you should draft the rights concerning women.　I was so happy and of course I agreed.　But other than women's rights, the freedom of study was something that I wanted to write.　Everybody agreed.　So I got aboard a jeep and made rounds of various libraries and collected constitutions of various countries for our reference.　This was to be done confidentially, so I didn't concentrate on one library.　If I concentrated in one library, the director of the library would wonder how come a member of the GHQ was so interested in various constitutions.　So I went to various libraries.　I came back to my office, everybody used the documents for reference; so I was very popular amongst the staff members.　Everybody wanted to use the documents I had collected.　
　 The order of General MacArthur was to draft the Constitution as quickly as possible.　So from morning till night, I read various constitutions.　I looked into what part would be suitable for Japan, and from my own experiences, I thought very hard about what kind of rights would be needed for Japanese women.
　 Before the War, I had lived in Japan for ten years, so I knew how Japanese women were.　I knew Japanese women were totally without any rights.　So, in the Constitution, I wanted to incorporate various rights of women, such as the selection of a spouse and the right to be assisted by the state when pregnant.　I wanted to incorporate all of these rights in the Constitution, and I wrote them concretely and strongly.　For example, in my first draft, the following was included: Family is the basis of the human society, and its tradition, for good or evil, permeates society at large.　Therefore, marriage and the family must be based upon the equality of both sexes. This is not by the collusion of the parents, but must be based upon the agreement of both sexes.　And it is not to be under the domination of the man, but must be based upon the cooperation of both sexes.　This Constitution shall stipulate this and if laws run counter to these principles, they will be rescinded.　Property rights, inheritance, the selection of the domicile, marriage, divorce, and all matters pertaining to families shall be based upon the dignity of the individual as well as the essential equality of both sexes.　Based upon that notion, laws must be promulgated.　
　 Regarding other provisions, I wrote the following: As far as pregnant women and the nurturing of infants are concerned, mothers doing this nurturing, irrespective of whether they are married or unmarried, are entitled to be protected by the State.　Legal assistance must be provided to give them what they need .　In the case of an illegitimate child, he or she should not be discriminated against by the law.　Regarding material and societal development, equal opportunities must be provided just as in the case of a legitimate child.　In the case of adopted children, the husband and the wife must agree with each other, otherwise the adopted child cannot be a member of the family.　In adopting a child, other members of the family must not be placed at a disadvantage.　The eldest son's sole power of inheritance should be abolished.　
　 I also talked about the equality of the education of children, arguing that, irrespective of public or private schools, children should be entitled to have free medical care for ophthalmologic treatment, for example.　Good rest and entertainment, and good opportunities for exercise for growth, must be provided.　Such detailed provisions were included in my draft.　
　 Colonel Roest and Prof. Wildes read my draft and the two of them agreed.　Then we went to the Steering Committee of the Government Section of GHQ and we recommended our draft.　There were three people on the Steering Committee: Colonel Kades, Commander Hussey, and Lieutenant Colonel Rowell.　All of them were lawyers and all of them were men.　These men read my draft, the basic rights for women.　They agreed with the basic rights, but they were adamantly opposed to what I wrote about social welfare. They said that such detailed provisions are not appropriate for a constitution and should be stipulated by the Civil Code.　These were the opinions of the members of the Steering Committee.　I was so disheartened.　Such social welfare must be included in the Constitution, in my opinion.　The Civil Code drafters are men and I told them I was absolutely sure that men would not incorporate such points into the Civil Code.
　 Colonel Kades said, "Beate, your draft contains more than the American Constitution." And I said, "Naturally. The American Constitution does not even include the word 'woman.'　But the European Constitutions include women's basic rights as well as social welfare rights in great detail."
　 I fought so fiercely for these rights.　I even shed tears.　But in the final analysis, the Steering Committee only adopted my wording for the current Article 24 of the Constitution: "Marriage shall be based upon the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.　With regard to choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the family, the laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes."　This was the only part of my original draft that remained.　
　 General Whitney showed this draft to the Japanese Government.　When he did so, my wording regarding basic women's rights still remained when it was handed to the Japanese side. I wrote that marriage and the family must be based upon the concept of the essential equality of the sexes, and that parents' collusion must not be a factor and there must be mutual agreement between both sexes.　It must not be placed under the domination of men but must be maintained with the cooperation of both sexes.　This still remained in the preamble.　The Japanese Government omitted these phrases concerning parental collusion and the domination of men.
　 In any event, I believe that the Steering Committee shortened my original draft, and I was so disappointed about the fact that my draft was shortened.　But at that time I was 22 years of age, so the Steering Committee members were older than me and had greater power, so I thought this was unavoidable.　But the very basic right was included in Article 24, and I was comforted by the fact that what I wanted remained in the Constitution.　
　 The draft was completed in a week and the Government Section presented it to General MacArthur.　Then General Whitney gave this draft to the Government of Japan.　I thought our work was completed, but that was not the case.　On the 4th of March, another confidential meeting was held.　The people who participated were the members of the Steering Committee as well as representatives of the Japanese Government.　I was called to this meeting, not because I was a drafter, but as an interpreter.　There were five interpreters.　The Head Interpreter was Lieutenant Joseph Gordon, and eighteen months later I married this Lt. Gordon.　So you could say that the drafting of Constitution had various consequences for me.　
　 At 10:00 o'clock the Confidential Meeting started, and I was not allowed to come out of the room until the meeting was finished.　All meals were served in that room.　These meals consisted of American Army provision, C-ration, which was canned meat, and K-ration, which was dry food.　I thought that meeting would be over in three to four hours, but from the very beginning all kinds of discussion and arguments started, especially regarding the Emperor system.　These discussions went on and on, not only about the meaning but also the usage of the words, what characters should be used, and so on.　On the Japanese side, the Japanese version of a new draft was used as the basis, while our side based ourselves upon our draft.　Then we compared the two.　The work was very complex; the Japanese side could not understand English and the American side could not understand Japanese, which made the job of interpretation very hard.　
　 The Japanese Government came up with a new draft, the provisions and we translated each provision one after another.　Then this had to be read by the Steering Committee, which had to respond to the Japanese draft.　This was a very time-consuming exercise.　
　 I was very quick at interpretation and I interpreted for both the U.S. side and the Japanese side.　Colonel Kades realized that the Japanese side had a very good impression of me.　At about 2 o'clock in the morning, when the provision about the equality of the sexes came up, this turned into a huge argument. The Japanese side said that this kind of women's right is not at all appropriate for Japan and not congruous with Japanese culture.　It was such a big fuss.　Just like the discussion on Emperor system, the discussion became very heated.　It became very late and everybody was tired.　
　 Colonel Kades made use of the good impression that the Japanese side had of me, saying, "Ms. Beate Sirota fervently wishes these rights for women, so let us adopt it since she is so enthusiastic about it."　The Japanese side did not know that I was the drafter of this provision and when Colonel Kades told them, they were stunned, so when Colonel Kades says let's adopt this, the Japanese side agreed.　And so Article 24 became history.　
　 The job of interpretation continued until 10 o'clock the next morning - I was working round the clock as an interpreter.　Colonel Kades told me to go home, so I went to Kanda Kaikan.　That day I slept very well.　Lt. Joseph Gordon continued the work on the Constitution until 6:00 in the evening, looking into the complex use of words and so forth.　
　 Were the Japanese people happy about the Japanese Constitution?　Of course, they were.　The Japanese Government at that time was not so happy about the Constitution, but the Japanese people were.　When they found out about the Japanese Constitution, the Japanese people didn't know that it was drafted by the staff members of General MacArthur's GHQ.　But in 1952, when the American Occupation Forces went back to the United States, one scholar and one journalist found out that the new Constitution was something imposed by the Occupation, by the Allied Powers.　And they insisted that such a constitution must be revised.　
　 Can we say that this draft of the Constitution was imposed by General MacArthur on the Japanese Government?　Generally speaking, when somebody imposes something on someone else, do you think he or she will impose something better what they themselves already have?　The Japanese Constitution is even more wonderful than the American Constitution, so it shouldn't be regarded as an imposition.　You do not impose something better than what you already have.　It is therefore wrong to say that this Constitution was imposed on the Japanese people.　Progressive Japanese men and a minority of enlightened women started from the 19th century a campaign for human rights, especially for women's suffrage.　So Japanese women were working in the movement for women's suffrage.　At that time the Japanese people were repressed, and this repressed will was reflected in this movement, which is why it was welcomed by the Japanese people.　
　 We, the drafters of the Japanese Constitution, were reticent about what we did for many years.　One reason was that the whole exercise was supposed to be confidential.　Another reason was my feeling that people who wanted to revise the Constitution would use my youthfulness as a pretext.　So I thought that I'd better keep quiet.　So I never accepted an interview by any Japanese newspaper companies.　Up until five years ago, I never said anything about it even to my closest friends.　Only once or twice, around 1970, I told something about it to one scholar.　
　 Regarding the fact that I was young, I want to say something here.　At that time, I was 22 years old, but I think there is a huge gap between being 22 years old in the present day and being 22 at that time; I was able to speak six languages.　When I was 19 and a half, I graduated from university.　Since I was six I had learned piano and dancing, and from the age of six I went to opera, the performing arts and concerts.　When the war broke out, I was in the United States and I was separated from my parents, so I had to be alone and I had to earn my own living.　From the age of 19 to 22, I was in charge of the research and translation of difficult journalistic topics.　Mills College was a progressive college.　And although these were not the days of feminism, I was already a feminist at that time.　When I was 22 years old I traveled the whole world, to Europe and to Asia.　From early childhood I saw militarism with my own eyes.　I knew about the military police very well.　Every day they would come to my house and ask our maid many questions.　When I was six, I was in Japanese society and played with Japanese friends.　So I had first-hand knowledge of the repressed situation of Japanese women.　The wives were always hidden behind the husbands when walking.　I saw these things with my own eyes.

CHAIRMAN:　 I am sorry but the time is up.　Could you please conclude.　

GORDON:　 I knew that the Japanese wives would only cook the meal and would not take part in the discussion, and I knew that these women were totally devoid of any rights.　You could not marry a person you liked, you could not divorce, you didn't have economic rights.　I also knew that in the family women may be powerful, that they had their say about the education of their children, and that they controlled the salary the husband brought home.　So, at the time of 22 years of age, I was not a novice, I was not just a little maiden who knew nothing about the Japanese situation.
　 Someone has said that since this is the Constitution imposed from the outside, it must be revised.　But historically speaking, Japan has always imported and adopted good things from outside.　Chinese characters, Buddhism, porcelain, court music are all things imported from outside and they have been adapted to the Japanese way.　So it's good that the Constitution comes from outside as long as it is a good constitution.　It doesn't matter whether it was drafted by young people or old people - who wrote the constitution is not really relevant.

CHAIRMAN:　 I am sorry, but time is up.

GORDON:　 If it is a good constitution, I think it must be adhered to.　This Constitution has lasted as long as fifty years.　In the past, whatever the constitution, it was destined to be revised in a forty years time.　I think this Constitution should become the model of the world, and that is why it has not been revised for as long as fifty years.　Japan should be proud to have this Constitution and should teach other countries about the wonderful nature of this Constitution.　Peace must be taught to other countries.　Other countries should emulate the Japanese Constitution and the concept of peace.
　 In May 1999, . . .

CHAIRMAN:　 I'm very sorry, but I think you have already made your conclusion.

GORDON:　 Just the very last piece of my presentation.　Sorry, the very last piece.　
　 I respect Japanese women very much; they are very wise and work very hard.　Japanese women's hearts and minds are very strong.　I am not an expert.　I am only a person called Sirota and I am an amateur, which is "shiroto" in Japanese.　I am a mother and a grandmother, so I worry about the future of my children and grandchildren.　Without peace, we cannot live in a secure way.　I am a foreigner, so you Japanese don't have to listen to what I say.　I don't have the right to vote in Japan.　
　 But I want you to listen to the voices of Japanese women.　What I hear is that the majority of the Japanese women prefer the Japanese Constitution.　They agree that the Constitution is an appropriate constitution for the Japanese context.　Thanks to the Constitution, the Japanese economy grew very rapidly.　You didn't have to spend money on weapons and could divert that money to technology, education and construction.　And because of that, Japan became one of the greatest powers in the world.　Other Asian countries, Japan's neighbors, think that Japan is a safe country.　Japanese women understand this point very well.　
　 Finally, I have one plea, one request to make.　Japanese women's voices must be heard.　Please listen to the voices of Japanese women.　Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:　 I have been listening very carefully to the words of Mrs. Gordon and watching very carefully the women members of the Commission.
　 Now, may I turn to Mr. Poole, the next guest speaker.　Mr. Poole, please.

POOLE:　 I would like to express my deep appreciation for being invited to discuss the Constitution.　Before proceeding, I have here a book that's only just been published by Prof. Theodore McNelly, who participated in the forum in 1997, and who was a recognized scholar and research historian and authority on developments in Japan, in particular.　So, he has asked me to present you with a copy of this book for the Commission.　May I?

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you.

POOLE:　 A little bit about my own background in Japan.　I was born in Yokohama on April 29th, 1919, which makes me rather old, but also that of course happened to be the birthday of Emperor Hirohito, which was a coincidence compounded later on.　On one side of my family, my brothers and I are the fifth generation in Japan.　My great great grandfather was one of the first two American consuls sent to Japan pursuant to Commodore Perry's treaty with the Japanese, and every generation since then has lived in Japan, including my generation for a few years.　I might mention that four of my forebears are buried in Japan.　
　 We lived in Yokohama until the great earthquake of 1923, when we were lucky to get out alive.　We lost everything.　Then we spent two years in Kobe, after which my father was unexpectedly transferred by his company to take over the New York Office.　And so we did not return to Japan until I came back in 1945.　But that has left with me a real affection for the Japanese people.　I remember fondly our old amah, who had been my mother's amah.　This affection has lasted, although there was a little break in our relationship, which has been repaired, and I still maintain that bond.　Amongst our possessions, our proudest possessions are the result of Japanese culture.　Our "imari" plates, our "kakemono," the prints, Hiroshige prints, furniture, all of which, or almost all of which were inherited.　To me this is a sign of our appreciation for Japanese culture and cultural development and the influence of Japanese culture on the cultures of the West.　
　 I returned to Japan in 1945 as a young naval officer on leave of absence from our diplomatic service.　Instead of invading Japan with the group, I was a member of the joint Army Navy unit that was slated for the invasion of Kyushu.　I was spared that and invaded Japan down the gangplank in Yokohama where I had been born and found that poor Yokohama had been destroyed for the second time in my lifetime.　I was assigned to the Government Section of GHQ General Headquarters, to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.　I was astonished to be given the task of helping prepare a draft constitution in one week and at being assigned to head the two-man committee on the Emperor and various miscellaneous provisions including amendments of the treaty-making powers and so forth.　I wasn't as young as Beate Sirota, since I was an old man of 26, and perhaps the fact that I had had foreign service experience and had studied constitutional law, international law, commercial law, maritime law, international relations and history, and the fact that I had always been interested in Japan throughout my life had some bearing on my assignment despite my very humble rank.　Colonel Kades, who was the Executive Officer of the Government Section, and who chaired the Steering Committee, remarked to me that most of those involved in the Occupation were a little bit suspicious of Americans who had lived in Japan for a long time and who they felt were associated with the old order.　But they thought maybe they could make an exception for me since I had left at the age of six.　
　 The background of the drafting process is well known to all of you, I am sure.　For instance, this was discussed at length in the 1997 Forum on the Constitution, which was sponsored by a large group of Diet members; and we could perhaps in some way provide some background for your studies.　The three of us who were invited, and unfortunately there are now only two, were the dwindling group of survivors of the drafting process.　
　 Briefly, the Japanese aggression in East Asia and the Pacific made clear the need to revise the Meiji Constitution, which had been misused by ultranationalists and militarists to provide cover for their actions.　The Potsdam Declaration and other Allied pronouncements called for change.　Consistent with these, SCAP from the outset of the Occupation instructed the Japanese Government to take various democratic actions and to embark on constitutional reform.　Washington provided guidelines in the form of what is called the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee, SWNCC, No. 228, which presented outlines for guidance drafted for the Constitution.　However, as Beate Sirota mentioned, MacArthur left the actual constitutional amendments to the Japanese until two concurrent developments induced rapid, direct SCAP involvement.　
　 The first of these was the Matsumoto draft, which had been unknown to SCAP until it leaked to the press and proved to be a mere cosmetic change to the Meiji Constitution and unacceptable.　So it was decided that, rather than discuss the Matsumoto draft, which would have been a profitless undertaking, SCAP should prepare a draft constitution to be given to the Japanese as an example of what would be acceptable, and that we were prepared to discuss this draft.　
　 The other element was that the Soviets had just joined the reconstituted Far Eastern Commission, and under this reconstitution the power of veto was given to the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and to the Soviet Union, which might soon be causing considerable mischief as it has already been doing in Berlin in attempting to undermine everything that the Democratic Allies wished to achieve.　
　 There was another element that was not possible to achieve, and this was the April 10 elections.　There were some who thought in the beginning that perhaps the Constitution could be drafted in time to, or the draft could be approved by the Diet in time to include it in the elections as a form of plebiscite, but time did not permit that.　
　 For those who are uncomfortable with these unusual origins, including the aspect of pressure from SCAP, it should be remembered that the SCAP draft reflected many of the views emanating from learned Japanese scholars, and that discussions with the Cabinet resulted in certain modifications, that it was then submitted as the Government's approved draft to the Diet, where it was discussed at length, and where certain additional agreed changes were made before it was approved overwhelmingly.　It should also be remembered that the Emperor himself helped resolve the divisions in the Cabinet, and supported the draft in submitting it to the Diet.　
　 I might mention as a little digression that I think it was about five years ago that the new Emperor and the Empress were in Washington in connection with the opening of a Japanese performance at the Kennedy Center.　A reception was given in which the Emperor and the Empress circulated quite freely amongst the guests, and I had the temerity to introduce myself to the Emperor and to tell him of my role in helping draft the Constitution concentrating on the Articles on the Emperor.　He smiled and said, "Yes, those are my instructions." But my impression from this is that the Imperial Household is quite agreeable with what constitutes the role of the Emperor as it was contained in the draft constitution, which was eventually adopted in an amended form.　
　 But in my view, it is more important to focus on the end product of the drafting process than on the process itself.　The motivation of the Allied Powers was to see true democracy and a peaceful Japan under a system that could not be misused by those who might wish to turn back the clock.　This system would enshrine the people's sovereignty, fundamental human rights, genuine democracy, a constitutional monarchy without governmental powers, and the renunciation of war, with assurance that these principles could not be abridged or suspended for any reason.　In establishing these principles, and in providing the mechanisms to do so, I believe the Constitution has well served the interests of the Japanese people, and helped Japan join the family of Western democracies.　
　 This does not preclude the possibility of amendments, which, of course, are permitted in the Constitution itself.　But in my opinion, an individual amendment should be considered only when and if needed, rather than through a sweeping revision of the entire Constitution, for the latter process could well open a Pandora's box of proposals.　Those concerned and interested in a particular amendment or amendments would be wise to consult widely to determine whether there is real public demand for the change or whether this might be tempered by some reserve as to where the process might lead.　Some have advocated modernization of the Constitution to meet the needs of the new century, such as increased emphasis on environment, overpopulation, worldwide disease, drugs and crime, and now problems of regulating new technological advances.　But it would be difficult to foresee what else the century will bring.　Questions such as these, as well as unforeseen problems, can better be handled by legislation and judicial interpretation, I believe, than by burdening the Constitution with too many operational details that tend to invite further changes.　
　 Thus I believe the Constitution should be a broad document which will encompass changes incorporated through the changes in the conduct of the Japanese Government that can be achieved by legislation and/or judicial interpretation.　
　 Now I wish to turn to just two specific provisions.　First, the Articles on the Emperor, in which I was directly involved.　But I hasten to add that my small committee consulted closely with the Steering Committee headed by Colonel Kades, and was not the sole author of the language that we used.　The Meiji Constitution vested all rights of sovereignty in the Emperor, and it was this provision, together with the provisions authorizing the suspension of constitutional rights, that was used by the ultranationalists and militarists in the Cabinet and Privy Council to act in the name of the Emperor in launching military adventures and in muzzling the opposition.　This had to change.　
　 Moreover, there were some demands in Allied countries, and in the U.S. Congress, to try Emperor Hirohito as a war criminal and to abolish the Emperor institution, steps which would have caused enormous problems for the Occupation.　No one really knows what the Emperor's personal views were on Japanese aggressions.　But in the end, he had been useful to the Allies in broadcasting the surrender and calling on the military to lay down their arms - the first time his voice had been heard publicly - and on January 1st, 1946, in renouncing his divinity and calling for constitutional reforms.　Later, his support for the new draft constitution was indeed helpful, even though it reduced his role.　
　 What we aimed for in the draft was a constitutional monarchy, with the Emperor divested of sovereign rights and governmental power, serving as a "symbol of the state and of the unity of the people" who are sovereign.　Nevertheless his role was given some significance beyond pure ceremonial by providing a number of functions subject to approval by the Cabinet.　
　 The word "symbol," "shocho," raised some problems in translation, but this was resolved satisfactorily by the use of the term "shocho," which acquired the meaning that was intended by the drafters of the Constitution and by the Japanese Government which approved the draft.　So, my impression is that this conveys what we meant and that it is generally understood by the Japanese people and accepted by them.　So the initial controversy surrounding the position of the Emperor seems to have been set to rest, and I for one am unaware of any substantial demand for amendment.　
　 Second, there is the question of Article 9.　I am told this remains the most controversial provision of the Constitution, although the Diet in 1946 made some changes in hopes of resolving doubts.　Much has been written as to whether the idea that became Article 9 originated with General Whitney and/or General MacArthur, who conveyed it to Prime Minister Shidehara, or whether it originated with Shidehara, as maintained by MacArthur in his Memoirs, and whether the penciled notes containing this and other instructions to the Government Section were written by MacArthur or dictated by MacArthur to Whitney; I don't think it really matters at this juncture.　That was a long ago, and we have got to look at the present.　I myself had nothing to do with this provision, except to express some misgivings with respect to the permanent renunciation of any armed forces following the Peace Treaty.　By the way, this was in a meeting of the entire drafting group where we were allowed to comment on whatever was under discussion.　It was one of first meetings and it was chaired by Colonel Kades.　
　 But I thought perhaps some of what became Article 9 had a place in the preamble as a declaration of intention, but I question whether this belonged in the structural part of the Constitution.　Colonel Kades turned to me and said: Do you know where this provision comes from?　He was a Colonel, and I was ranked Ensign with one stripe.　I said, "No, sir."　And he said, "The general."　That meant only one person.　He said, "Have you any further questions?"　and I said, "No, sir."　And that was the extent of my involvement.　
　 But I have continued to be interested in the question to the point that I am an advocate of constitutional change on this one provision.　That doesn't mean you open up the whole constitution for massive review, but I think this could be looked at, that I think the first part of Article 9, renouncing war as a sovereign right and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes, conforms to the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact adopted by some 65 countries, and hence I think it is noncontroversial.　
　 However, the controversy remains with respect to the second paragraph, stating that in order to accomplish the foregoing, land, sea and air forces will never be maintained.　I believe it also says that the right of belligerency will not be recognized.　In point of fact, Japan does have armed forces in the form of the so-called "Self-Defense Forces."　You just have a different name.　And I think in the light of today's reality and the need for Japan to assume responsibilities in international affairs on much the same basis as other leading democracies, it strikes me that the current ambiguity should be removed by providing for armed forces and that the role of the armed forces should be limited to defense.　Now the armed forces already exist, so this would be talking about the role of an institution that already exists.　This role would be limited to defense, not just self-defense.　There are other possible occasions, and we have seen them in recent years, where defense beyond one's borders is justified in connection with international cooperative arrangements.　In other words, this role would be defense, not just self-defense, and participation in international peace-keeping operations, and not just the United Nations, but certainly prominently the United Nations, because of other international agreements.　
　 I think here is a case where it would be essential to determine the will of the people and to assure them, and to assure the countries that suffered under Japanese conquest, that there is absolutely no intention to endanger them again.　
　 Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much, Mr. Poole.　Mr. Poole stated that the Emperor visited the United States five years ago, but I believe that was an error in timing, so I would like to reconfirm.　I think it was back in 1975 when Emperor Hirohito visited the United States.　I believe he was referring to that.　
　 Mr. Poole, am I correct?　It is not that the present Emperor has been involved, but in order to be very accurate and precise for the minutes of the meeting, I would be grateful if you could once again clarify later.　I believe you were referring to Emperor Hirohito's visit to the United States back in 1975.　
　 Now, Prof. Esman, who is not present today, has already submitted to us the paper to be presented to this Research Commission on the Constitution.　I would like to ask Mr. Takemi, the Director of the Commission, to read the paper on behalf of Professor Esman.　Mr. Takemi, would you be kind enough to come over here?

TAKEMI:　 Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to read the paper submitted by Professor Esman.　
　 The members of the Government Section of SCAP, who were called upon in February 1946, to draft a new constitution for the Japanese nation, were naturally influenced by the American philosophy and experience with the government.　The American concept of a national constitution is a charter of limited government that safeguards the basic rights and freedoms of the people and provides government with powers sufficient to satisfy the ever-changing needs of society, while insuring the stability and continuity of the political order.　Since it is intended to endure for a long period of time, for decades and even centuries, a constitution must serve as a living charter for government, flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions that could not have been anticipated at the time the constitution was enacted.　
　 At that time, I expressed my opposition to the method that was chosen to draft the new constitution.　I believed that while a new democratically inspired charter of government was needed to replace the authoritarian Meiji Constitution, it was important that a group of democratically oriented Japanese scholars and opinion leaders should participate in and contribute to this project.　Otherwise, the new constitution would be regarded as a foreign imposition that would not survive the end of the Occupation.　But since I was a young and very junior officer in the military headquarters, my objections were easily brushed aside.　Subsequent events, however, have proved me wrong.　The great majority of the Japanese people adopted the MacArthur-Showa Constitution as their own, and have zealously defended it, because despite its awkward language, it expresses their genuine political aspirations.　
　 My colleagues and I at that time were frequently and solemnly warned by senior officials of the Japanese Government that the Japanese public was not sufficiently mature or educated to operate a democratic government, that the necessary processes of education would require at least a century, and that any effort, however well-intentioned, to install a democratic regime prematurely would lead to certain disaster.　We were not impressed by these warnings, and our respect for the political maturity and sound judgment of the Japanese people have since been fully vindicated.　
　 Though the Showa Constitution, like all constitutions, contains many specific provisions, far more important are the basic principles that inspire it.　These principles were intended to serve as guidelines in future years for applying the language of the charter to fresh challenges and changing needs.　I believe the Showa Constitution incorporates nine guiding principles:
　 One:　The Japanese state is a constitutional monarchy in which sovereignty resides with the Japanese people speaking and acting through elected representatives at the National Diet.　These representatives are freely chosen in periodic, competitive elections.　
　 Two:　Executive powers are exercised by the Cabinet composed entirely of civilians and chaired by the Prime Minister.　The Cabinet is responsible to the peoples' representatives and must at all times command the confidence of a majority of the House of Representatives.
　 Three:　Basic human rights for all individuals, including freedom of belief and expression, of assembly and association, are inviolable and must be safeguarded by government.　
　 Four:　All persons are equal before the law.　There may be no discrimination or unequal treatment because of race, religion, gender, ethnic background or class origin.
　 Five:　The rule of law shall prevail at all times and no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property, or condemned for criminal behavior except as provided by law.　Judges must apply the constitution and the laws completely independently of political influences.
　 Six:　Government shall promote social welfare, social security and public health, and provide free, compulsory, and equal access to public education.
　 Seven:　No taxes shall be levied or moneys expended except as specifically authorized by the Diet.
　 Eight:　Regional and local government shall be based on the principle of maximum feasible autonomy.
　 Nine:　Japan will never undertake aggressive military action, but will participate actively in the international community of peace-loving nations.　
　 If we were able to assemble once again the men and women of the Government Section of GHQ, whose labors produced the Showa Constitution nearly 55 years ago, instead of the very few of us who now remain, I am confident they would agree that what matters most and what they hoped would infuse Japanese Government in the years ahead are these basic principles of enlightened democratic government.　As long as these guiding principles are respected, the language of the Constitution would provide ample scope for dealing with problems that would confront the people and their government in future years.
　 How then are constitutions brought up to date, so that they can effectively serve future generations?　Formal amendments are sometimes unavoidable in order to overcome specific language or to change the basic institutions of the state.　Such was the case in my country when constitutional amendments were found to be necessary to abolish slavery, to enfranchise women, and to limit the tenure of Office of Presidents to two four year terms.　Any proposal in Japan for the popular election of a President or Prime Minister, since it would alter the institutional structure of the state, would similarly require a formal amendment.　But procedures for formal amendments in your constitution as well as in ours tend to be cumbersome, and to allow small but determined minorities to block measures that are considered necessary by the great majority of the public.　
　 So, the more common method of adjusting the fundamental law to changing conditions is by interpreting the language of the constitution in the light of these guiding principles to apply to new circumstances.　This has been the method used in the United States, and that has enabled the Federal Government to cope with problems such as regulating airline traffic, safeguarding privacy on the Internet, and protecting the environment from chemical pollution, that could not possibly have been foreseen by the authors of our Constitution more than two hundred years ago.　The men and women who drafted the Showa Constitution 55 years ago were familiar with this method of constitutional interpretation for enabling government to do what is needed to stay up to date and to meet its international obligations.　
　 Governmental action that can reasonably be implied from the language of the constitution is permitted, even though it is not explicitly authorized.　Thus the Diet and the Supreme Court interpreted Article 9 correctly, in my opinion, to authorize a self-defense force on the reasonable assumption that all nations enjoy the inherent right to self-defense.　Likewise, the preamble recognizing that "no nation is responsible to itself alone" implies Japan's obligation as a major beneficiary of international peace and order, to contribute its share of money, materials and personnel, including military units, to UN sponsored peace-keeping and peace-enforcing missions.　
　 In this connection, I recall that my colleagues in 1946 had just witnessed and many had directly experienced the horrors and terrible suffering caused by six years of unrestricted warfare in Europe and Asia.　They dreaded the prospect of nuclear warfare.　They were hopeful that mankind would finally have learned its lesson, that it would find the means through international cooperation to prevent future warfare, and that post-Imperial Japan in the company of other peace-loving nations would participate fully in maintaining international peace.　I cannot believe they would have favored any constitutional provision that would prevent or limit Japan's full participation in UN sponsored peace-keeping or peace-enforcing missions.
　 These then are the main thoughts that I would leave with this distinguished Committee:
　 One:　A national constitution should facilitate, not obstruct or prevent policies or course of action that its elected representatives, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, consider necessary for the good of the nation.
　 Two:　The most common and most practicable method for meeting fresh challenges and for revising public policy is by the reasonable interpretation of constitutional language and of the great principles that underlie the charter of government.　Formal amendments should be attempted only as a last resort.
　 Three:　The men and women of the Government Section in 1946 had optimistic hopes for the new United Nations.　They believed strongly in the need for international cooperation.　They expected that once it had been restored to honored membership in the community of nations, Japan would become a leading supporter of and full participant in UN sponsored activities to achieve international peace and order.　
　 Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much.　We have heard the presentation of the two guest speakers plus the reading of another guest speaker who could not come.　
　 We are behind schedule, but the presentations and remarks were very interesting, so we to exceed the allotted time since we couldn't just stop the presentations midway.　Our guests have traveled a long distance to be with us today, so I felt I couldn't interrupt their presentations.　We were supposed to have a fifteen minute break, but we will break for only five minutes.　So let us resume this session in five minutes.

[BREAK]

CHAIRMAN:　 Ladies and gentlemen, we will now be resuming the session for the Commission.　We would like to continue with our research on the Constitution through questions from the members of the Commission.　Since the time is limited, I would like to ask the member asking the question to address it to the guest speaker concerned and to please be very brief in your question.　We have already asked the members to give their names to the Secretariat, and we will be having one round of all the political parties in the House of Councillors.　
　 First of all, I would like to call upon Mr. Kuze.

KUZE:　 I would like to thank the two guest speakers who are indeed the founding father and mother of the Japanese Constitution.　Thank you very much for traveling such a long distance to attend the Commission.

CHAIRMAN:　 Could you please state which political party you belong to.

KUZE:　 I am a member of the LDP and the New Conservative Party.　
　 Ever since the Constitution was enacted, Japan's society and economy have been undergoing various significant developments.　On the international front, there have been requests for a bigger role and mission or Japan to play in the international community as the situation has changed after the ending of the Cold War.　And because of the changes in the industrial structure as well as the national livelihood, the values of the public are also changing.　In order to respond to such changes, we have been doing our utmost to expand the interpretation of the Constitution, but we have come to its limit.　Consequently, there have been many voices asking for the review and amendment of the Constitution.　Thus we now have established Research Commissions on the Constitution both in the House of Councillors as well as the House of Representatives.　
　 I would like to ask a question to the two guest speakers from the point of view of international as well as domestic crisis management.　There have been many developments which scare us very much.　For instance, the security issue on the Korean Peninsula including the launching of the missiles by the DPRK as well as the sarin gas attack in the Japanese subway and the big Kobe earthquake.　The Japanese public are indeed very frightened that the security and safety in Japan is at stake.　We are also very worried about the eruption of Mt. Usu.　Very recently we have many problems relating to crisis management.　
　 I would like first of all ask a question to Mr. Poole.　Mr. Poole, you mentioned earlier that it would be very demanding if we are to have a comprehensive review of the Constitution, but perhaps we need to scrutinize some of the specific articles.　You mentioned the example of Article 9, that the provision of the armed forces to be limited to just international peace-keeping operations as well as self-defense should be made clearer.　I know you are well aware that with regard to the self-defense forces law established in 1954, the peace-keeping operation law, and the defense cooperation guidelines between Japan and the United States on surrounding areas' emergencies, we will be increasingly establishing a system for crisis management.　We have been responding to changes as they occur and have been engaged in an expansive interpretation of Article 9.　But the interpretation of Article 9 itself alone would be restrictive; it as its limits.　When it comes to self-defense as well as international peace-keeping operations, there will be bottlenecks such as collective self-defense as well as collective security under the United Nations.　More than an expansive interpretation, perhaps we need to amend Article 9 through a national consensus.　Could you please state your views on this particular question.　
　 When you visited us back in 1997, I believe you stated that Article 9 needs to be amended.　I think that was your position then.　I was planning to ask Professor Esman about crisis management, especially the relationship between domestic crisis management and the executive powers responding to it, but since he is not here, I would be grateful if Mr. Poole would be kind enough to give his answer to this question.　Since many crises may not be predictable, we need to have sound and solid preparedness and readiness.　
　 As for provisions for a national emergency, there is only Article 54, the convocation of an emergency session of the House of Councillors.　There are no other provisions relating to national emergencies.　Since is the collegiate panel of the Cabinet that has executive power, the power resting with the Prime Minister is perhaps too weak.　So I would like to hear the views of Mr. Poole as to the review of the Constitution vis-a-vis the development of a good system for crisis management.　
　 I also have a question for Mrs. Beate Sirota Gordon.　You have made various proposals for the women's rights as well as women's welfare.　In 1999, we were able to establish the basic law for a gender equal society.　Thus the status of women has been made stronger and being reinforced.　I think this represents very good progress in Japan.　
　 The establishment of human rights is indeed very necessary.　But on the other hand, at a time of crisis, in order to protect the public welfare and the safety of the people, individual rights may be severely restricted.　Natural disasters and other crises may occur.　How would you regard the relationship between the state and the people and between public obligations and individual freedom and rights?　 That is to say, human rights should be restricted at some times in order to protect the public welfare.　What is your view on this?
　 As Ms. Gordon has already mentioned, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, you urged to have the home to be the basis for the mankind and to be inserted into the language of the Constitution.　When we observe the Japanese society right now, I feel strongly the necessity of the insertion of such wording.　What is your view on this?

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Poole, would you be kind enough to respond to the questions asked by Mr. Kuze?

POOLE:　 I'd appreciate it very much if you could rephrase your question clearly and simply, because your voice is so loud that I can't hear the interpreter.　So could we try again?

KUZE:　 I am very sorry about that, sir.　As you have stated earlier, regarding Article 9. . .

CHAIRMAN:　 Please do not repeat the speech.　Could you be very brief?

KUZE:　 Yes.　Regarding Article 9, self-defense and international peace-keeping operations should be the two things to which use of the armed forces is restricted.　I agree with you on this.　But there are certain bottlenecks, such as collective self-defense as well as the collective security under the United Nations.

CHAIRMAN:　 In view of Mr. Poole's age, could you ask the questions one by one.

KUZE:　 Could you state your views on Article 9 once again, please.

POOLE:　 Well, I will repeat the views that I have already expressed, but my suggestion is that Article 9 should clarify the role of the armed forces.　And as the armed forces already exist under a different name, I am not suggesting that the Article create the armed forces because they are already there.　The suggestion is to clarify the point of bringing the Constitution in line with reality.　And hopefully this clarification would go some distance in putting to rest the dissension over Article 9 and the dissension over the interpretation of Article 9.　Make it clear.　My suggestion was to state that the armed forces should be limited to defense and participation in international peace-keeping operations.　That's it.　
　 But the rationale for it is that we hope that Japan now, as a major power and a member of the democratic nations of the world, should participate on the same basis as other democratic nations.　I realize the difficulties, particularly when looking at the countries that suffered under Japanese occupation.　But this suggestion doesn't create armed forces; they already exist.　It would define what they should do, and the definition is what's controversial now.　
　 I have to add, and I should have mentioned this in the first place, that Japan has contributed assistance to operations such as the Gulf War, Cambodia, and elsewhere, providing very useful assistance.　And that is appreciated.　But Japan is reluctant to join other countries who feel the need to take military action under international peace-keeping operations.　So you have to proceed with caution because of the likely reaction, particularly amongst the countries that suffered under the Japanese occupation.　Therefore my suggestion is that any intention to make this change be clarified to those countries, making it clear that there is no intention of resuming aggressive warfare.
　 Now, the language I suggest obviously can be improved, but this is the suggestion.　And also, besides assuring the countries that suffered under Japanese aggression, that it should be determined whether the people want this change.　
　 I don't know whether that answers your question, but that's the best I can do.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much.　Mrs. Gordon, please.

GORDON:　 I have already spoken too long, so I shall be very brief.　I have to apologize for my earlier too lengthy statement.　
　 To cut down on human rights is very dangerous.　Thus, amending of the Constitution may be dangerous in this regard.　You can establish a law, on the other hand, so perhaps under the Civil Code you could insert new provisions.　Japan is a member of the Human Rights Commission, and the convention was signed in 1979.　And many languages included in the question, I believe, have been sourced from the Convention.　But the word "public welfare" may be very risky, inherently risky, in the way how you use it.　I am not a political scientist myself, but I think you need to be cautious.　Rather than amending the Constitution, of course, you can resort to interpretations of the Constitution as well as establishing laws.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much.　I would now like to turn to Ms. Sasano.

SASANO:　 First of all, I would like to thank the Chairman of this Commission.　This is the last year of the twentieth century and this Research Commission is a major event.　It is wonderful to have an event like this.　
　 Mr. Chairman, the LDP people . . .

CHAIRMAN:　 You can always talk to me, so you don't have to address me at this moment.

SASANO:　 But this is very important.　I have to say this.　The revision for the Constitution seems to be the majority view, you said, but amongst women at least, there is no such movement.　We believe that current Constitution is a wonderful thing.　That is the view of women and it is my own opinion.　After all, it is very important to listen to others' views.　I hope that the Chairman will listen to the others' views.　You should not make too much haste.　I hope that you will lead the discussion so that we can come up with a Constitution which would be good for the 21st century.　That is my introduction.　
　 Mr. Chairman, you have a very warm consideration for women.　Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:　 Well, being energetic and making haste are different.

SASANO:　 Please be cautious.　You can be energetic, but please be careful.　
　 I have a question to Mrs. Gordon, first.　But before asking this question, I think I heard something very important, and if you couldn't read some important part because the Chairman urged you to make haste, you can read again what you intended to read.　
　 You were very enthusiastic about women's rights.　Mrs. Gordon's wonderful opinion was something that I would like to mention.　In Article 24 of course it is retained, but more than that, Mrs. Sirota, you referred to work and the right of work.　According to your draft, women have the right to be employed in any profession, and this includes the political profession.　And women have right to be receive equal pay with men in any profession.　So, marriage and the family are very important, but I think the same work and the same pay, and the right to work, are also very important.　Such a good draft was made fifty years ago.　I would like to pay my deepest tribute to you, Mrs. Gordon.　
　 But although we talk about equal work and equal pay, according to the Labor Ministry's statistics, in 1948, women received 41.8 percent of the pay of men.　Eight years ago, this percentage was 63.9.　But when women reach a certain age, 50 and over, it decreases, comes down to something like 53 percent.　So I have a question, Mrs. Gordon.　When you drafted this provision that women can work and should work, what kind of ideal did you have?　
　 And also, do you have any comment on the reality in Japan, where Japanese women's pay is about one half of what men receive?

GORDON:　 This is not only a question for Japanese women.　In the United States, it took a lot of time to come to where we are.　We have a long tradition of democracy.　Even today, if a man earns 1 dollar, a woman would earn only 80 cents.　So, come to think of it, you have only 50 years of history, and still you have 63 percent.　It's wonderful.　It's enormous, compared with the long history of the United States; 80 percent in 200 years.　But you attained 63 percent in 50 years only.　So, again, congratulations to you, Japanese women.　Japanese women are very active; you have worked very hard.　That's why you have achieved this.
　 But come to think of it, historically speaking, fifty-five years is not a long time.　Such issues take time.　In 1945, Japan was a conservative country, but now Japan has made drastic changes.　So it is very difficult to make a leap from there to here.
　 I think from now on you will make sweeping advances.　You have the computers, you have the Internet, you have the process of globalization.　So I am positive that from this point onward Japanese women will make great strides forward.

SASANO:　 Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:　 I will allow you to ask one more question.

SASANO:　 Mrs. Gordon, in Article 27 you have left a very important concept, and I think it was very significant for Japanese women.　I hope that we will work hard to reach 100 percent.　And I hope that the current constitution will not undergo any backward changes.　
　 Next, I would like to talk about the academic understanding of the Constitution.　Mrs. Gordon, when you drafted the Constitution, in Japan, including universities and high schools, this wonderful Constitution was taught in educational institutions.　But from around 1955, the Constitution has been taught less and less in educational institutions.　Especially in the case of women's colleges, the Constitution has become an elected subject.　And in universities, except for the Faculty of Law, it has become only an elective subject and not a compulsory subject.　Most graduates from women's colleges don't know anything about the Constitution.　The Constitution is wonderful guarantee of women's rights, and yet the Japanese　people are beginning to discuss the revision of the Constitution without really learning about it or really knowing its contents.　The reality is that the Constitution is not a compulsory subject; even in men's universities, there are less and less opportunities for men to study the Constitution.　
　 Mrs. Gordon, do you have any opinion about this reality?　This is the policy of the Ministry of Education.　I think it is very dangerous.　That is my view.

CHAIRMAN:　 Mrs. Gordon.

GORDON:　 Again, this is also the situation in the United States. Nowadays, young people, I don't know the reason, don't go to vote.　So situation is the same as in Japan.　They have lost interest; they don't know, and they don't act according to the rights they have provided with.　Probably this is the quality of education, or that people are disenchanted with certain politicians or simply not interested.　I think generally the situation is the same in those countries I mentioned earlier.　22 years old at that time and 22 years old now are so different.　At that time, we went to vote.　We never abstained.　And we were engaged in various political movements.　Even women were involved in political movements.
　 So I hope that you will go out and give lectures to educate people so that they will read the Constitution.　I very much hope you will do this.　The situation is the same in the United States.

CHAIRMAN:　 This morning Mrs. Gordon appeared on NHK and she said that she was satisfied with gender relations in Japan.　I just wanted to make that addition.

SASANO:　 I think she made just a flattering comment.

CHAIRMAN:　 Let us go on to the next person.

TAKANO:　 My name is Takano and I am from the New Komeito and Reformers Network.　I would like to thank the two guest speakers for their great contribution.
　 First of all, allow me to ask a question to Ms. Gordon.　When you sat on the Subcommittee on Civil Rights, you were only 22 years old and had been living in Japan.　Regarding the questions of women's rights and children's rights you played an important role, for which I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation and respect.　You had experience of living in Japan and you were cognizant about the social position of women and familiar with tradition and culture of Japan.　You were a rare commodity.　
　 And I was surprised to learn that the original draft by the Subcommittee even contained a proposal concerning the civil rights of foreigners.　I take it that the substantial part of the section you drafted on women's rights was omitted in the end.　The Constitution strictly upholds the equality of the sexes.　
　 This question is not directly related to the Constitution, but I would like to ask your views concerning Japanese women then and now.　What is your reaction to the Japanese women of that time and Japanese women now?　
　 Finally, do you have any message that you would like to give to women in Japan in the forthcoming 21st century?　
　 Let me go on to my question addressed to Mr. Poole.　What do you think about the fact that the Japanese Constitution has never been revised to this day?　 People have pointed out the gap between the Constitution and reality, and I believe this has reached its limit.　I don't think you could have foreseen that this Constitution drawn up in just nine days would not be revised for more than fifty years.　
　 Incidentally, when the Constitution was drafted, I hear you made a remark saying that since the Japanese people have a mysterious way of thinking, we should prohibit any amendment of the Constitution for ten years to ensure that Japanese people learn the meaning of democracy.　Do you have any reaction to this?　
　 I have another question.　You have already referred to this in your answer to a previous question, but allow me to ask you this question nevertheless.　You have mentioned that the Japanese Constitution can be amended and that Article 9 has to be made more clear, enabling the Japanese forces to take part in international peace-keeping operations, activities, and so forth.

CHAIRMAN:　 Please be brief in asking your question.

TAKANO:　 General MacArthur was said to have upheld his idea on this matter of Article 9.　Do you think General MacArthur wanted to be regarded as one of the great statesmen in the history books published in the future?　Did you have that impression of General MacArthur at the time?

GORDON:　 My message to Japanese women in the 21st century is: On a daily basis Japanese women have to fight toward gaining the same rights as men, achieving the same position as men, and this struggle has to continue without any suspension.　You also have to get involved in political activities, including international activities.　When the Conference was held in Beijing, five thousand Japanese women were said to have taken part, which was a remarkable thing.　And at the same time, I think we still cannot find peace in the world because there are various different regions suffering from conflict, so peace will be a major issue in the 21st century.　
　 I think women are more peaceful than men.　It's a mission given to women that for the sake of peace, on a daily basis, women have to fight hard.　And I encourage Japanese women to take part in this.

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Poole, would you give your answer please.

POOLE:　 There were several questions.　Which was the one directed to me?

TAKANO:　 Let me just rephrase my last question.　About General MacArthur, it was said that General MacArthur insisted that the renunciation of war should be included in Article 9.　Do you think he insisted on this because he wanted to be described as a great statesman in the history books?

POOLE:　 I really don't know what MacArthur's own motivations were for the future.　But I do know that he said afterwards, after he left Japan, that he considered the Constitution his prime achievement in the Occupation.　But whether it was political motivations, the political situation in the United States, I frankly don't know.　But in a way, I think, while this Article 9 was promoted by him or agreed to by him, I imagine that when the Korean War broke out, for instance, he had some other thoughts about whether Article 9 was realistic.　But this is pure speculation.　He didn't tell me.　
　 I will make one point, and I am digressing: I think there was a misunderstanding earlier about my meeting with the Emperor.　This was Emperor Akihito, shortly after his accession. I can't tell you exactly how long ago this was; it was something like four or five years ago, at a reception at the Kennedy Center, where he and the Empress were present, and they circulated freely amongst the other guests.　The occasion was a Japanese presentation at the Kennedy Center for the performing arts.　I was perhaps a little bold in mentioning to him that I had had a role in drafting the articles on the Emperor.　But he was amused and said, "Those are my instructions."　In other words, the existing Constitution, the Showa Constitution, comprised his instructions with respect to the role of the Emperor.　That is all.　I thought he was quite relaxed in saying this, and it indicated to me that he had no problem with that article.　But this was not the earlier visit of Emperor Hirohito.　It was Emperor Akihito.　

CHAIRMAN:　 All right.　I understand.
　 Did you get Mr. Takano's question?　Let me try to rephrase the question for you.　Are you satisfied with the answer given?　Okay.　It would be helpful if you enumerate your question and ask them one by one.　Let us go on to the next question.　
　 May I now call upon Ms. Yoshikawa?

YOSHIKAWA:　 My name is Yoshikawa and I belong to the Japan Communist Party.　I have questions for the two guest speakers.　I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your very impressive as well as very interesting statements.　
　 May I first of all ask Mr. Richard Poole the following question?　
The Japanese Constitution was enacted under the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, and the content of that was based upon President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms Policy as well as the Atlantic Charter, the Charter of the United Nations and the Potsdam Declaration.　Anti-fascism and anti-militarism were the bases of the spirit of the Four Freedoms Policy as well as all the documents I have cited.　There is heightened interest in Japan in this spirit.　
　 I am proud that Japan, which played a role in sparking World War II that caused devastation to the world, learned a lesson from the War and adopted Article 9.　Mr. Poole, as a person directly involved in the drafting of the Constitution, what are your feelings and impressions of this?　Could you also comment on the fact that the GHQ-drafted Constitution was prepared in just one week, which is a focus of criticism.　In many of the studies on the Japanese Constitution, the State Department had for many years been involved in the study of the constitution prior to the War or before 1945.　So would you say that the drafting by GHQ of the Japanese Constitution was the culmination of the many years of study by the Department of State, or was it totally independent from this study?　This is my question to Mr. Poole.
　 Now, turning to Mrs. Gordon, in drafting the historic Constitution in Japan, I am sure you had read the various constitutions of different countries, and that you had also observed the very unfortunate fate of Japanese women, and had perhaps considered the women's rights that had been overlooked in of Japan.　You were also trying to come up with precise and detailed language so that Japanese women would not have to suffer subsequently.　This was not a present from MacArthur, but as Lieutenant Weed mentioned when he visited the various villages, it was the product of the fight of all Japanese women for many years before the War.　I was very impressed that amongst the staff of the GHQ there were many who were very friendly and very close to Japanese women.　As we have seen from the campaign for democracy, including the demand for women's suffrage ever since the First World War, GHQ was able to incorporate these movements before the War into the campaign of Japan's women.
　 In your book, I believe you mentioned that there was no arrogant atmosphere of imposing on Japan a constitution drafted by the soldiers of the victorious country.　Rather, it seems that you were so immersed in trying to come up with the ideal nation that you wanted to incorporate into the new Japanese constitution state-of-the-art rules and regulations.　That is my question for Mrs. Gordon.

CHAIRMAN:　 May I first of all ask Mr. Poole to answer the question?　Mr. Poole, were you able to understand the gist of the question to you?

POOLE:　 Only one question?　There seemed to be several, but I believe you the last one you asked was: Were the drafters and GHQ SCAP in the Government Section aware or drafting in accordance with State Department studies and positions on the subject?　
　 The State Department view was conveyed in November 1945, through the document I referred to, called the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee, SWNCC 228.　This document was prepared both in the War and Navy Departments, which were then separate departments, and in the State Department.　And Dr. Hugh Borton, who then was in the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, which we now call East Asian Affairs, had a very major role in drafting that.　He was assisted by Marshall Green, who had been personal assistant to Ambassador Grew, and who later on became Ambassador to Japan.　These were views conveyed by the State Department in this document.　That document was before all of us when we drafted the Constitution, or prepared the draft of the Constitution for presentation to the Japanese.　
　 Now, MacArthur, I must say, was not inclined to consult the State Department very much.　The political Advisor to General MacArthur was kept very much at arm's length.　MacArthur didn't consider that he needed political advice.　
　 So the Constitution, as you know, was drafted behind closed doors, and Washington wasn't even informed that this was going on until after the fact.　The Office of the Political Advisor, which was the State Department Office, did not know this was going on.　Of course I felt a little doubt about that since my basic career was in the diplomatic service, but I was in uniform and I was under instructions, and I was acting as a young naval officer.　I did not run over to the Political Advisors Office to tell them what was happening, nor to ask for better advice.　But, as I say, this document, SWNCC 228, which provided guidelines for a future constitution, was drafted jointly with the State Department and the two military departments in Washington.　
　 Was that the question, and was that the answer?

CHAIRMAN:　 Yes, I believe so.　Yes.　Mrs. Gordon, please.

GORDON:　 About Mr. Weed, he was not a member of GHQ; he was involved in some other job.　I think I met him once or twice.　When we drafted the Constitution, this was quite confidential.　We were not able to consult with anybody outside.　But I knew that Mr. Weed had done a superb job.　And after ten years or so, I met with Mr. Weed in New York, and I learned many things from him.　I agree with your view that he has done a lot of good things for Japanese women.
　 Regarding the question whether, in preparing the GHQ's draft constitution, we did research into past movements of Japanese women, I did not have enough time to do research.　Of course I did refer to the constitutions of the other countries, but I was not able to consult anybody else.　I knew that the Japanese women were engaged in many movements for the rights of women, but of course I did not know the details.　I was able to come to know the details long after that, in 1952, when I served as interpreter to Ms. Fusae Ichikawa, who was a Diet member at the time.　
　 As for human rights, when we drafted the section on human rights, of course we wanted to draft an ideal constitution.　We wanted to have the best to be incorporated into the draft constitution.　I myself did not have any direct involvement in the clause on peace or security, but of course I knew that the clause would be inserted.　I thought that it would be good for Japan because other Asian countries had suffered from the consequences, and if militarism was categorically denied and eliminated in Japan, it would give a sense of security to these other countries.　And if a peace constitution could be established, this would become a good model to be emulated by other countries.　That was our hope.　Yes, we did have that in mind.

CHAIRMAN:　 Next, I would like to call upon Ms. Masako Owaki.

OWAKI:　 Thank you very much.　My name is Owaki and I represent the Social Democratic Party.　Thank you very much for coming such a long way to share with us your invaluable comments.　Thank you very much for your participation.　
　 First of all, I have a question for Mr. Poole.　At the time the MacArthur draft was made, the Research Committee on the Constitution composed of Japanese journalists and researchers prepared and released their own constitution including an outline draft based upon the doctrine that sovereignty resides with the people.　You have stated that the MacArthur Draft reflected many of the views of Japanese scholars and research institutions.　But do you recall specifically who these people were who were consulted, and what kind of materials were referred to?　Do you remember concretely who they were and what kind of materials you consulted?

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Poole.

POOLE:　 I can give you some of the names of the organizations, but I'd have to look into my notes.　They appear in one of Charles Kades studies.　I know that in my little section we did have an opportunity to look at a couple of these drafts.　I think they were particularly studied by the Steering Committee itself, by Colonel Rowell, who, before the constitutional exercise, was in charge of the Judicial Branch of the Government Section.　
　 Now, did you mention the Kenpo Kenkyukai, the Constitution Research Group?　
　 Yes, actually Colonel Rowell made a study of that earlier on January 11th, and he found a lot of merit in that draft.　And that was one of the ones that Colonel Kades later lists.　I don't know whether you want me to read out the lists of drafts that were looked at.

OWAKI:　 Yes, please read it.

CHAIRMAN:　 No, we do not have time.

OWAKI:　 But it's very important.　

CHAIRMAN:　 I'm sorry, but it's going to waste time.　Other people have questions.　It will take too much time if he reads it out, so please could you submit the material later on so that we can read it.

OWAKI:　 Please give us the list later on.

POOLE:　 I could make a photostat of what Colonel Kades wrote and give it to you, but that was one example, and there are others mentioned here that were prepared by learned groups.　And these were, of course, influential in this whole process.　
　 I think one of my regrets is that there wasn't time to make a study of all the proposals nor was there time to examine all of the constitutions of the world.　Beate Sirota collected some of those for our benefit.　We had time to study some of them, including our own.　But anyway, there were many sources for the action taken by the drafters of the draft constitution.　There were many influences.　It wasn't just born full-formed from that one week session.　There were other influences.

OWAKI:　 Thank you very much, Mr. Poole.　Now, I have another question for you, Mr. Poole.　The MacArthur note began with the words "the Emperor is at the head of the state."　And as translated into Japanese, what was the content of this phrase, "the Emperor is at the head of the state"?　
　 And who came up with the idea to use the word "symbol"?

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Poole.
　
POOLE:　 Well, first of all, General MacArthur was not a constitutional scholar, and he didn't make a distinction between a chief of state and a head of government.　When they wrote "the Emperor is at the head of the state," it wasn't very clear what he meant.　So we decided that he meant a constitutional monarch.　If you draw a chart, you'd have him at the top, but in a symbolic position, and then you'd have the Cabinet and the Diet and the people.　But that doesn't mean that that's a descending order of importance.　And so, with the agreement of Colonel Kades, we used the term "symbol."　We didn't invent the term; it has been used before.　But this is the first time, to my knowledge, that it has been used as part of a constitution. We could have thought of some other term, but this conveyed what we had in mind, and I think the term "shocho" come to mean what we had in mind and that this provision has become acceptable.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much.

OWAKI:　 I have one more question, this time for Mrs. Beate Sirota Gordon.　Article 24 on the dignity of individuals and the essential equality of men and women is something which is so drastically and fundamentally encouraging to all of us in Japan.　Susan J. Pharr, a scholar who lectured in Japan in 1977, said that in whichever area a reform may be needed, the authority of selection was not given from somewhere high above, but it was given to the Committee itself.　In other words, the authority to select the theme was spontaneous.　Is it true?　Is it true that it came not from above but from within?　
　 Now, regarding the spirit of Article 24, was there any rift between the military and civilians in the occupying forces?　I suppose there was opposition or resistance from the Japanese Government.　And what was the attitude of the women's movement in Japan at that time?　Can you elaborate on those things?　In concrete terms, what kind of opposition and what kind of rift or confrontations were there?

GORDON:　 Within the Steering Committee, you mean?

OWAKI:　 Yes.

GORDON:　 You mean, not the Japanese representatives but between Colonel Kades and Dr. Rowell?

OWAKI:　 Yes.　And also, in the Japanese Government, as I think you mentioned.

GORDON:　 Well, this may be lengthy, so please limit my remarks.　This is going to take some time.　
　 As far as Hussey, Rowell and Kades on the American side are concerned, they were lawyers, so they had very good knowledge of American constitution.　There was no mention of women in the American Constitution, nor of the social welfare or women's rights.　These people had that kind of background.　They knew that the Civil Code must incorporate these matters, but they did not think it was not an appropriate subject for the Japanese Constitution.　I said that European constitutions were different, but I couldn't convince them.　
　 But before he passed away two years ago, Colonel Kades told me that they listened to what we said and didn't decide right away to shorten it.　 They discussed this matter with General Whitney and afterwards decided to cut it altogether, but it wasn't an abrupt or an easy decision.　Perhaps something registered in their minds deep down.　
　 But the Japanese representatives, at the very end of the process, at the last meeting of the Steering Committee and the Japanese Government, the last liaison meeting, if you will, between the two parties, the Japanese side said that such and such rights were not suited to Japanese culture, not congruous with Japanese civilization and so forth.　But there was not much of a discussion because at that time Colonel Kades limited or restrained that kind of resistance.　
　 So beyond what I said, there was not much resistance from the Japanese Government.

OWAKI:　 How about the reaction of the women's movement in Japan?　Do you know any reaction from the Japanese women's movement?

GORDON:　 At that time, you mean?　The Japanese women's movement?

OWAKI:　 For example, there was the general election in between.

GORDON:　 Of course, I saw it directly with my own eyes.　It was the first general election.　I went there and was surprised because old women, young women, everybody came out and cast their votes.　I hope that they will all come out and cast their ballots today too.　It was wonderful - it was an enormous achievement in those days.　So I'm sorry to have to say that women of 22 and 50 were much better those of 22 and 50 today.　
　
CHAIRMAN:　 Please continue.　Mr. Hirano.
　
HIRANO:　 My name is Hirano and I am from the House of Councillors Club.　It feels like the Constitution is being drafted again at this meeting here today, so I am very pleased to be here.　
　 Mr. Poole, I have two questions about the debate at GHQ on the provisions of the revised constitution.　According to Mr. Rowell's document, with regard to the revision of the Constitution, it was said that there was going to be a prohibition of any revision for ten years after the enactment of the Constitution.　And later on, any proposal for revisions to the Constitution should be discussed at the Diet.　Was the meaning behind this that for the initial ten year period the Constitution was to continue under the control of the Allied Forces but it could be revised by the Japanese people after ten years?

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Poole.

POOLE:　 Well, there were various versions of the terms of amendment under discussion, and I am not really sure what document you are talking about, because what was submitted to the Japanese Government was not what you relate.　But while we debated amongst ourselves the terms of the amendments, there were various ideas including this one.　But this was not presented to the Japanese Government.　
　 What some wanted to do was to make it difficult to amend, and to prevent rapid amendment, the fear being that once Japan became a sovereign state again that the Constitution would be scrapped.　And that was the idea, I imagine, behind the document you are referring to, which must be an informal memo of some kind.　There were even thoughts that the Japanese Government should be required to review the Constitution every ten years.　
　 But all of these different ideas were blended, or not really blended, but were not what was really submitted to the Japanese Government.　You are familiar with the articles on amendment now that the amendment can be made at any time that the Japanese Government and the Diet and people agree to make it.　But it is difficult just as amending our own constitution is not easy.　You know the provisions of what was submitted to the Japanese Government.　And if you would like, I will see if I can put my hands on it.

CHAIRMAN:　 Do you have a second question?

HIRANO:　 No, I am satisfied with the answer given.

CHAIRMAN:　 May I call upon Mr. Michio Sato?

SATO:　 Yes, thank you.　My name is Sato.　Mrs. Gordon earlier mentioned the name of Ms. Fusae Ichikawa in relation to the women's suffrage movement.　I actually belong to the same party or group she belonged to, the Niin Club.　
　 I would like to ask Mr. Poole whether he thinks there may be certain limits to the possible amendment of the Constitution.　To change and revise the basic philosophy of the Constitution is something that needs to be prevented because this be a coup or a revolution.　The current Constitution is based on three principles: firstly, that sovereignty rests with the Japanese people; secondly, that the human rights of citizens should be respected to the utmost; and thirdly, the upholding of peace and pacifism.　Therefore reverting sovereignty once again to the Emperor is prohibited and it is not allowed to circumscribe the rights of the people.　But Article 9 renounces war and perhaps prohibits the existence of the armed forces and the military.　Within the scope of the Constitution, is it permissible to have a military or armed forces?　
　 Some scholars say that we need to amend or abrogate the Constitution so that we can draft a new constitution, but this may be a revolution.　In drafting the Constitution, did you also debate this?　This is my question for Mr. Poole.　
　 May I also ask a question to Mrs. Gordon?　At Seinen Gekijo, "The Pearl Necklace," a theatrical presentation written by James Miki depicting the fact that the present Constitution was prepared in just one week, presents the view that you rushed to prepare the Constitution.　I would like to hear your view whether we should really go and see this play.　There are many people here, I am sure, who are very interested.　Do you think that the play should be recommended?

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Poole, could you please give your answer first?

POOLE:　 There is no restriction on what amendments can be considered.　One would hope that unwise proposals would not be accepted by the Japanese Diet and the Japanese people.　And I think that is the restriction.　But in the initial draft that was submitted, it was stated that there would be no amendment of the civil rights provisions, under Chapter 3 of the Constitution, without being submitted to the people in a plebiscite.　But this was actually struck out by General MacArthur, who felt that there should be no restrictions.　Naturally, one would hope that the Japanese Government would not attempt to alter the provisions on civil rights.　We hope that they would not attempt to alter the role of the Emperor or to change the whole philosophy of the Constitution.　
　 But technically, you could amend it so you go back to the Meiji Constitution.　I don't think that would be wise, and I don't think the Japanese people would accept that.　But strictly and legally speaking, there is no limit to what can be considered.　I think it would be very unwise, as I have said, to open up the whole Pandora's box of looking at the whole Constitution.　If there are particular things that need to be discussed, I think they should be discussed individually and particularly, and not to try to review the entire Constitution, which invites all kinds of what I've called the "Pandora's box" of proposals, that might convert the Constitution into something very distinct from what it is now.　
　 And getting back to the original feeling, I think the question is asked whether it is really a Japanese constitution.　Well, the origins were - were odd, I will admit, but the Japanese accepted it; the Japanese Cabinet accepted what was negotiated with them, the Japanese Diet accepted what was presented to them by the Cabinet through the Emperor, and it became the Japanese Constitution through this acceptance.　And I think this is confirmed by the fact that it has remained unchanged.　It has become a Japanese constitution.　And the origins in the Occupation, I think, while they presented difficulties in accepting it, are far less important than the text and what the Constitution itself does.　Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:　 Mrs. Gordon, would you like to respond?

GORDON:　 I mentioned that I am an amateur, but when it comes to cultural exchange, I have been involved in cultural exchange for the past forty years.　I am actually an expert on theater, and I would recommend The Pearl Necklace, which is a　superb play.　There are actually two actresses playing my role; one playing the young Beate and the other the older Beate.　I would recommend you to go and see this play.

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Sato, I hope you will go and see The Pearl Necklace.　
　 I believe we have made the round of all the political parties in the House of Councillors.　We still have thirty minutes or so to go, and there have been submissions of requests to ask questions from Mr. Koyama and Ms. Madoka, who would like to ask additional questions if the time allows.　Since we still have some more time available, I would like to allow for two more questions from two people.　If you could submit your questions in advance from the Secretariat, the staff of the Secretariat will go round to take the order.　Mr. Koyama, please.

KOYAMA:　 I have questions for both of the guest speakers.　You talked about the instructions coming from the SWNCC.　After the surrender, you compiled the instructions for the United States to occupy Japan so that it should not become a threat to the U.S. and to the rest of the world.　I think that was a major pillar constituting an important part of the Occupation Forces' policy vis-a-vis Japan.　That's what the SWNCC note said at the very outset.　So, in drafting the Constitution, did you know about this SWNCC note, which was in existence at that time?　 And was the Constitution drafted along the lines of the instructions contained in the SWNCC memo that Japan should not become a threat to the rest of the world?　
　 I am of the view that this Constitution was made by the Occupation Forces, but some people here are very critical about Japanese Constitution.　But did you know about the existence of the SWNCC's memo?　And did you work along the lines of the instructions of the SWNCC, or were you aware of the existence of the instructions contained in the SWNCC note?　This is a question addressed to both of the guest speakers.　
　 And as Ms. Gordon had mentioned before, you were called upon by the Government Section and asked to draft part of the Constitution on February 4th 1945.　Mr. Rowell, who was in charge of the judicial work, said that if this GHQ draft was not accepted by Japan, General MacArthur had said that force could be used in order to make Japan accept it.　Did you know about this?　
　 Did you also know that the mass media had imposed severe censorship on the draft of the constitution made by the SCAP forces?

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Poole, would you like to respond to the questions?

POOLE:　 Well, the first part of your question is whether we were aware of the SWNCC memo.　It was right in front of us as we drafted the Constitution.　This was one of the documents that each drafting group had before it.　We were very much aware of it.　
　 Regarding your last remark about, I believe it was General Whitney, who is reported to have said that if this draft was rejected MacArthur would go to the people to get acceptance, I frankly don't know whether there was any real intention to do that.　The hope was that the Japanese Government would accept this as a draft to be discussed if they weren't asked to accept it immediately.　There was some feeling, expressed by Matsumoto, that the Cabinet should reject this draft outright.　There were those who felt it was unwise and the Cabinet was divided on the subject, but the Emperor intervened in favor of accepting it.　This didn't mean verbatim acceptance, but negotiation based on that document.　
　 I don't know whether that answers your question, but the question of going to the people if it hadn't been accepted for negotiation may have been just a talking point.　I really don't know.　But one important thing from everything we've got from Washington and from what MacArthur himself had said is that a constitution forced on the Japanese people against its will would not be an acceptable constitution over time, and would be counter to what the Occupation itself wanted to achieve.　What was negotiated may look quite like what was originally presented, but there were a number of changes made, and the fact is that the Japanese Government finally accepted it as the Japanese draft for presentation to the Diet.

CHAIRMAN:　 Ms. Gordon.

GORDON:　 Sorry, I thought the question was addressed only to Mr. Poole.　So, can you rephrase your question once again?

KOYAMA:　 When you were involved in the drafting of the Constitution, Mr. Rowell left it in his document saying that, and I think Ms. Gordon has been also reported to have said that if the Japanese side rejected the GHQ draft, Japan might be forced to accept this draft.　And General Whitney was reported to say that that was an instruction which was mentioned by General MacArthur.　Was this the case or not?　
　 And regarding censorship, Allied Forces drafted the Constitution, but the strict censorship was imposed on the mass media and the press was constrained so that people did not find out that this draft was made by the Allied Forces.

GORDON:　 Well, I know nothing about that myself.　I have read somewhere that Mr. Rowell had conveyed the intention of General MacArthur, but I don't know it myself.　I haven't witnessed that myself, so I cannot say anything about it.

KOYAMA:　 In your testimony you have mentioned that the Japanese people did not know about the drafting of the Constitution.　Your visits to libraries to collect the necessary information was surely confidential work.　So maybe you were not supposed to let the Japanese people know that this work of drafting the Constitution was going on.

GORDON:　 I cannot comment because I don't know anything about that.　That is to say, we were working separately from one another at the time.　I was working on the human rights and civil rights issue solely, exclusively.　And Mr. Roest and Mr. Wildes were also working on the same topic.　Three of us were working on this, but we did not know what the others had been writing in their draft exactly, because we didn't have time to communicate with one another.　All of us were kept very busy just doing our own work.　And the highest degree of concentration needed to be dedicated to the work assigned to each individual.　
　 So, I do not know what work was done by my fellow colleagues.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you.　Now, let's go on to the next question.
　
MADOKA:　 My name is Madoka Yoriko.　I am not a regular member of the Research Commission, but I knew that these two guests were going to be present.　I was dying to listen to their views, so I asked for special permission to take part.　I have also been given this opportunity to speak, so I would like to extend my special thanks to the Chairman.　
　 My first question is to Ms. Beate Sirota Gordon.　The time constraint was indeed enormous and it must have been very tough for the victorious country to draft a constitution for the defeated country.　Together with other colleagues, you actually drafted the Constitution.　Did you regard that this Constitution as good enough to establish a democracy?　Didn't you think it was inappropriate?　You had great ideals for the future of the mankind and you were very passionate in bringing about these ideals.　I learned about this from books and other sources.　I feel very thankful to you.　
　 Some people say that this Constitution was imposed upon us.　But among the Japanese people, a powerful minority of men drafted the Imperial Constitution, and under that yoke the Japanese women had a very hard time.　Then they came up with Plan A and Plan B of Matsumoto Draft, but we were very happy that the Matsumoto Constitution was not imposed upon us.　The Matsumoto Draft, was a scoop story carried by the Mainichi Newspaper Company.　Did you read that newspaper report?　If you did, there was no section about civil right or women's rights. What did you think about that?

GORDON:　 I was so disappointed and disheartened.

MADOKA:　 In drafting the civil rights section, "all natural persons" were the starting words in your original draft of Article 13, I think. What was the thinking behind this concept?　Did you select to words "natural persons" to avoid limitation to one race or ethnic group?
　 We have the system of imposing the fingerprint taking on the foreigners living in Japan.　If "all natural persons" was the concept adopted in the Constitution, then foreigners living in Japan would receive better treatment.　What was the thinking behind this suggestion?

GORDON:　 I really don't know.　That was the section drafted by Dr. Wildes, who was a very trendy person.　He liked esoteric words.　Nobody understood what the meaning of "natural persons" was.　Colonel Kades and I discussed this, and Colonel Kades didn't understand it either.　Dr. Wildes has already passed away, so we couldn't ask him what he meant, so I'm afraid I don't know.

MADOKA:　 Dr. Wildes knew the cast system in India before he came to Japan, and he was adamantly opposed to discrimination between peoples.　So he wanted to eliminate discrimination of all kinds between all peoples or between all countries.　But at that time you did not have any knowledge of this?　Okay, thank you, I understand.
　 I have another question.　Other people have spoken already, for example, about the right to work, equal pay, and equal work; these are rights irrespective of whether a person is married or unmarried.　That was what you wrote in the original draft.　Such rights should be given to all people, all women, married or unmarried.　
　 Was the reason for the elimination of that particular section that it was too detailed and it was not attuned to a document like the Constitution, or do you think that the dominance of men was too great and that was why it was dropped?

GORDON:　 I for one believe that Colonel Kades, when he looked into my chapters of social welfare, and so forth, was not really opposed to my idea.　Before he passed away, he told me he was not against the idea, but he opposed the idea of putting it into the Constitution.　He thought that those stipulations would be more appropriate for the Civil Code.　And I agree with that.

MADOKA:　 But as you said earlier, the Civil Code is drafted by men, and if it is not incorporated in the Constitution, there was a risk that it would not be incorporated in the Civil Code.

GORDON:　 Yes, I said so.　But Colonel Kades had no experience with the Japanese bureaucracy.　He was not in Japan before the war.　But I had a plethora of experiences.　I was the interpreter for my father and my mother when they had to go to police or other agencies.　I knew there were many bureaucratic men and that they could be very nasty and tough on people like my parents.　But Colonel Kades had no knowledge of the bureaucracy.　
　 Another thing.　Colonel Kades told me four years ago that the view at that time was that Japan was occupied and a Civil Code would be drafted.　That was what he anticipated.　He believed he would be there when the Civil Code was drafted and he was determined to see to it so that those provisions were incorporated into the new Civil Code.　But it didn't happen.　So, in the final analysis, it happened the way I predicted.

MADOKA:　 You see, in the field of civil codes, we make certain proposals, but always the Government says that it runs counter to the traditions of Japanese civilization.　
　 Can I ask one more question?

CHAIRMAN:　 No, I'm sorry, time is up.

MADOKA:　 Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:　 Ms. Ogi.

OGI:　 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.　I would like to thank the Chairman of the Research Commission on the Constitution for giving me the opportunity to ask a question.　Ever since the House of Councillors has established this Research Commission on Constitution, I have been always asking to be given the floor.　So I would like to thank you for this opportunity.　
　 I have listened carefully to the statements made today and I would like to ask my questions one by one.　My first question is to Mrs. Gordon.　
　 I would like to thank you for all your efforts to improve the status of women in Japan.　But when I look at the reality, and when I look at the status of Japan as it is in the international community, I cannot really see a clear picture as to the status and value of the women in the Constitution because traditional values are not being upheld in Japanese society and in the Japanese Constitution.　So I do see some problems with the Constitution, and also in Japanese society.　Although rights were given to women in Japan, as Mrs. Gordon has mentioned, Japanese women have been subjugated and caused great suffering.　What has become of the good points of the traditional role of women, which has been quite lost in the past fifty years?　We need to reflect upon what has been lost from Japanese society.　
　 There is one thing I would like to ask Mrs. Gordon.　You were one of the drafters of the Japanese Constitution, but you have kept this confidential and have kept your silence for very many years.　As to the Constitution actually drafted by you, the New York Times in the United States reported that the new Constitution abolished the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and that it would depend upon the Japanese people to be in favor of peace, and that this was so idealistic that it would lead to the slighting of the Japanese Constitution.　This was the evaluation of the New York Times many decades ago.　The Christian Science Monitor also reported that even though the draft was satisfactory in many respects, it was not a good Constitution for making Japan a peace-loving country.
　 Was the reason you kept your silence for so many years that the Japanese media was critical of the drafters, that the U.S. media was critical of you, and that although Japanese women were suffering greatly there were many good points, many advantages to the traditional role of women?　What is your reaction to this?

GORDON:　 I never heard of this article or editorial of the New York Times.
　 Regarding what you said just now, that many of the good points about Japanese women, some of the traditional roles of Japanese women, have been lost or denied by the new Constitution, yes, it was quite unfortunate that this happened.　I have great respect for culture, and the good points of culture need to be preserved.　But as to the women's rights, Japanese women were not given any right at all.　So you have to start from scratch.　Not only Japanese women but Japanese men were denied their inherent rights, and that was the thing I wanted to correct.　But, of course, Japanese women were more oppressed, so I wanted to extend a helping hand to the oppressed women of Japan.　That was my motivation in drafting the Constitution.　I had to think of Japanese women more than Japanese men.　
　 Of course, things may have changed.　Of course, men have to be supportive of women.　I would like to ask Japanese women to ask your men to support you.　You must have equal rights for men and women.　You shouldn't be partial to either sex.　If not, you will not be able to enjoy your life together with men.　If men and women get married and live together without the development of either, no good can come of it.　So the progress of women and men should go hand in hand.　Even within one family, without equality between men and women, you cannot have happiness.　
　 Now, when I think of the future, peace is the supreme consideration. Of course, you need to have some freedom in your family. The family is the fundamental unit of the society.　And it is very good that you are active not only at home but also in society.　Men and women need to go forward hand in hand, supporting each other.

OGI:　 No, that was not the point I was trying to make.　The drafting of a peace constitution does not mean that peace will be brought to that country.　For our own country as for other countries, the peace constitution is the ideal, but it does not mean that the ideal constitution will bring you the peace.　You have to execute certain responsibilities, certain obligations.
　 When I invited you over to Japan in 1997, I listened to your views and statements at the Constitutional Hall of Japan.　I am indeed very sad that Professor Esman cannot be here today.　I would now like to ask Mr. Poole a question.　In drafting the Constitution, I believe the United States was asking for just one House of Parliament, a unicameral system.　But we have two Houses, a bicameral system.　But I believe the United States was asking for a unicameral system.　And when Professor Esman came here in 1997, he said that he did not want a bicameral system.　But if you remember the debate of more than fifty years ago as to whether to have a unicameral or bicameral system, could you explain to us what kind of discussions you had?

POOLE:　 It was a particular point that General MacArthur himself wanted to propose a unicameral system.　I think his thought process was that the House of Peers was such an undemocratic institution that it shouldn't be replicated in some other form; he preferred to propose a unicameral system of government.　So, that's what we all drafted.　But I am not sure that all the changes were incorporated.　When we drafted it, when we spoke of the Diet we were speaking of a unicameral diet.　And then this had to be changed.　Now, it was understood that this was a negotiating point.　If the Japanese Government preferred a bicameral system, with an Upper House or - would you like to be called the Upper House - and with a House of Councillors that was democratically elected, then this would be conceded as a sort of negotiating point.　So, MacArthur understood that, and that was, of course that was one point for the Japanese side in the negotiations.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much.　Time is running out and we are fifteen minutes behind schedule.　But since this is a very good opportunity, I wanted as many persons as possible to be able to utilize the time given to us.　We have had requests from the floor for additional questions, but let me exercise the Chairman's prerogative and ask three more people to ask questions.　In particular, there are many women who would like to ask questions to Mrs. Gordon.　So I would like to call upon Ms. Fukushima, Mr. Uozumi, and the Acting Chairman of the Commission to ask the last questions.　The Communist Party may ask to be given the right to ask a question, but if you could, please give us your kind support and understanding.　
　 Ms. Fukushima, would you like to ask your question?　Just one question, please.　

FUKUSHIMA:　 Thank you very much for giving us a constitution which is a weapon and ammunition for us Japanese women.　My question to Mrs. Gordon is this.　If the Constitution is revised, and Article 9 is revised and if we have military forces, what would it mean to other Asian countries?　What is the significance of Article 9?　What do you see as the meaning of Article 9?

GORDON:　 Regarding Article 9, what you are asking is the possible reaction to other Asian countries.　Other Asian countries, still remember the militaristic Japan.　Because of the Peace Constitution they feel rest assured.　But if the Constitution is revised, they will become suspicious of what will come out of the revision of the Constitution.

CHAIRMAN:　 Mr. Uozumi?

UOZUMI:　 I am from the Komei Party Reformers Club.　I have a question for Mr. Poole.　You have mentioned that, of course, the Japanese people were not permitted to go back to the Meiji Constitution and revise that, but the Japanese Constitution is regarded as a constitution which is rather difficult to be revised.　The preamble of the Constitution talks about the people's sovereignty and it says that it is based on universal principles and implies that the constitution is rather difficult to revise.
　 But you have talked about the internal debate within the Allied Forces SCAP.　Did you also discuss the limits of revising the Constitution?　Was there any internal discussion as to the limit that might be conceivable for the revision of the Constitution?

POOLE:　 Well, in the Constitution there is no limit on what can be revised.　You have to rely on the wisdom of the Japanese people and their elected government.　And that is true of almost any constitution anywhere, that it survives as long as it serves the interests of the people.　
　 Now, the preamble sets the tone of the Constitution, and that it should be a constitution, as we like to put it, of the people, for the people and by the people, quoting Lincoln.　And that in itself, I think, is the guarantee that a democratic constitution will continue.　Now you can change it; there is nothing to prevent you from changing the totality of it.　But I think you would be unwise to open it up for total review and possible multiple changes.　I don't think it would be easy to do that.　But theoretically, that is possible.　Our own Constitution could be amended so that it disappears.　But we wouldn't do it.　
　 So I think that is the best guarantee for the survival of a democratic constitution.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much.　That was a very logical question.　There will be one more question.　Mr. Yoshioka, please limit your question to just one person.

YOSHIOKA:　 Yes, my question is addressed to Mrs. Gordon.　In the debate we have on the Constitution, it is frequently mentioned that the Constitution was drafted by just one week, too short a time.　Because it was drafted in just one week, the implication is that it was made in haste; it was rushed and maybe a rather irresponsible constitution draft was forced onto Japan.　That may be the insinuation or implication of this point.　
　 But as I listened to the statements made by the two guest speakers, although it was prepared in just one week, they put tremendous efforts into this one week, and it was based upon the many long years of study made by the U.S. Government in the past.　Also, reference was made to knowledge and expertise on constitutional studies in Japan.　So although the actual work or preparation was done in just one week, it was based on tremendous effort as well as tremendous knowledge of the background.　Is my understanding correct?　Or would you say that because of the shortness of the time, the work was incomplete?

GORDON:　 We made reference to the constitutions of other countries as well, and the drafters of such constitutions would have put much thought into their preparation.　So I think we were able to pick the best from all the other different constitutions.　We were therefore able to collect and gather the best of the thinking and philosophy of the different drafters of different constitutions all over the world.　So I think the draft we were able to prepare and submit to Colonel Kades was the best.　
　 The Socialist Party was also able to come up with their views, and the Steering Committee was able to give us this information.　So it is not that nothing originating from the Japanese was included.　That is not true.　We did include some elements which originated from the Japanese people.　
　 We debated thoroughly what we thought should be included in the constitution from early in the morning till late in the night, and I think the draft we prepared was indeed adequate enough.　And since the Japanese Constitution has never been amended to this date, and I think it is well suited to this country.　So even though it may have been prepared in just one week, it was indeed an excellent constitution.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much.　Acting Chairman, Mr. Yoshida, will make the closing remarks on this memorable, historic occasion.　Mr. Yoshida, please.

YOSHIDA:　 Thank you very much for giving me such an important task.　I don't know whether I can live up to the task given me.　
　 Mr. Poole, Ms. Gordon, thank you very much for traveling such a long distance despite your very busy schedule to come to Japan.　You have discussed with us various matters pertaining to the process of drafting a constitution.　I was indeed very much impressed and moved by what you said.　Especially, the two of you have a profound understanding of Japan.　You love Japan, and for the cause of the world you worked very hard to produce a good draft of the Constitution.　This is deeply significant.　Having listened to your presentations, the Constitution has come closer to our hearts.
　 The most vexing question for us now is the issue of world peace.　In the past, we have experienced various wars, including wars in which we took part.　People always engage in wars in the name of peace, and there are apparent wars of aggression conducted in the name of peace.　In the face of this historic fact, we must remind ourselves that we should never cause another war.　
　 We have therefore come up with a Constitution which renounces war, which renounces use of the armed forces altogether.　In the name of peace, sometimes people enter wars of aggression.　We know that it happened in the past.　So we should renounce all belligerent forces, and this is the first constitution of its kind in the world, and has the highest value in the world.　However, the world situation is not exactly as we anticipated, and there are various places in the world where Japanese participation in PKO is required.　Japan has also attained the global status as one of the great powers, and a contribution commensurate with this status is required of us.
　 So is the Japanese Self-Defense Force a military force or not?　We need to have consistency between reality and constitution, but there seems to be some mismatch between them.　That is the difficulty that we face.
　 Mr. Poole mentioned that if we revise our Constitution, we have to gain the understanding of the Asian people to whom we have caused so much trouble, and we have to offer our detailed, elaborate explanation to the Asian people that our revision of the Constitution will not pose as a danger regarding the use of militaristic power.　No matter how much rhetoric you use, the world will not trust you, so we must not be careless about revising the Constitution.　Before going into the process of revising the Constitution, we have to make thorough approaches to other countries to explain our position.　Not only regarding the Constitution but also concerning economic cooperation and cultural exchanges, or relations between the United States and Japan, we can have security treaties and networks of security treaties where people can rest assured about Japan's intentions, and Japan can contribute accordingly to the settlement of conflicts in various places.　
　 These are the questions which are on our minds.　In terms of foreign relations we would like to continue our efforts, and if you have other views we would like to learn from you again.　
　 Another point: We have been discussing the Constitution.　Of course, the Constitution has universal philosophical value.　It is the fourth oldest constitution in the world, I hear.　The principles of the Constitution, of course, must be adhered to and the ideal state has to continue, and the rest can be dealt through interpretation.　That's one way of thinking.　Another way of thinking is that things are changing, so as times goes by, as the necessity arises, we should revise particular provisions, and probably that would result in a better constitution for the world of the future.

CHAIRMAN:　 Are you posing a question to Mr. Poole?　 Mr. Poole, having heard the Acting Chairman's comments, this is the last question.　Do you have any concluding remarks, or you have some urgent message that you wish to impart to the audience?　I would like to ask the audience to be quiet for a moment. Mr. Poole, please deliver your concluding remarks, or any responses to the remarks you've just heard.

POOLE:　 Thank you, Mr. Yoshida, for your remarks.　To my way of thinking, you are both realistic and idealistic.　There is no conflict between the two, and your suggestions, I think, very much correspond to what I believe.　I do think that the Constitution can be adapted to reality in a way that reassures neighboring countries that Japan's role is a very different one now from what it was before, and that there is absolutely no intention whatsoever to revert to past militarism.　There are different ways this can be handled, through public relations or diplomatic relations, so that your neighboring countries feel assured.　I think also, on the other hand, that you need to make sure that this is what the people want.
　 I think these two conditions for revising Article 9 are essential.　The question is whether it can be accomplished under the amendment procedures.　
　 Now, I believe your deliberations will continue for five years.　Since I plan to live to be a hundred, I am available to participate in your fifth anniversary.

CHAIRMAN:　 Thank you very much, Mr. Poole.　I hereby close the Research Commission's deliberations.　As you mentioned, in five years time I hope that you will all come again, and you will take part in the Research Commission's deliberations.　Thank you very much.　
　 Now, with the Board of Directors' agreement, we will attach an English version of the minutes attached to our official minutes.　
　 I would like to thank our guest speakers, Mrs. Gordon and Mr. Poole.　Thank you very much for providing us with your very frank and reserved opinions.　On behalf of the Research Commission, I would like to thank these two guest speakers for their participation and contribution.　
　 Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.　The meeting is adjourned.